Benchmark: lodash merge vs object.assign vs spread with empty receiving object

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Tests:

lodash merge
var a = { a: 'oh', b: 'my' }; var b = { c: 'goddess' }; var c = _.merge({}, a, b);
object.assign
var a = { a: 'oh', b: 'my' }; var b = { c: 'goddess' }; var c = Object.assign({}, a, b);
spread
var a = { a: 'oh', b: 'my' }; var b = { c: 'goddess' }; var c = { ...a, ...b };

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash merge
object.assign
spread

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/106.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 106 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash merge	1743213.4 Ops/sec
object.assign	4312633.5 Ops/sec
spread	2619901.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of three approaches for merging objects: `lodash.merge`, `object.assign`, and spread operator (`{ ... }`). The test cases are identical, with two source objects (`a` and `b`) merged into a new object (`c`).

**Options Compared**

1. **Lodash Merge**: Uses the `_.merge()` function from Lodash library to merge the objects.
2. **Object Assign**: Uses the `Object.assign()` method to merge the objects.
3. **Spread Operator**: Uses the spread operator (`{ ... }`) to merge the objects.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Lodash Merge**:
	* Pros: Lodash is a well-maintained, widely used library with a simple API. It's also quite efficient.
	* Cons: Requires an additional dependency (the Lodash library) and has a small overhead due to the function call.
2. **Object Assign**:
	* Pros: Native JavaScript method, no dependencies required, and fast execution.
	* Cons: Requires careful handling of edge cases, such as when merging objects with null or undefined values.
3. **Spread Operator**:
	* Pros: Fast, lightweight, and easy to use. No additional dependencies required.
	* Cons: Introduced in ECMAScript 2018, so older browsers might not support it. Also, can be slower due to the overhead of creating a new object.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used as a library for its `merge()` function. The library provides a simple and efficient way to merge objects.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The spread operator (`{ ... }`) is a relatively recent addition to JavaScript, introduced in ECMAScript 2018 (ES10). It allows for more concise object creation and merging.

**Other Considerations**

* **Browser Support**: The benchmark results are specific to Chrome 106 on Windows Desktop. Other browsers might have different performance characteristics.
* **Optimization Opportunities**: Depending on the use case, there might be optimization opportunities, such as caching or memoizing the merge function for repeated executions.
* **Alternative Approaches**: Other approaches, like using `JSON.parse()` and `JSON.stringify()`, could also be used for object merging. However, these methods are generally slower and less efficient than the three approaches compared in this benchmark.

In summary, the benchmark compares the performance of three object merging approaches: Lodash Merge, Object Assign, and Spread Operator. Each approach has its pros and cons, and understanding these trade-offs can help developers choose the most suitable method for their specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

lodash merge vs object.assign vs spread with empty receiving object (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash merge vs object.assign vs spread

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash merge

object.assign

spread

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):