Benchmark: deep merge vs custom

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://unpkg.com/deepmerge@4.2.2/dist/umd.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

state = {
 data: {
  data1: {
   super: 'ok' 
  }
 }
}

Tests:

custom
function merge(a, b) { return Object.entries(b).reduce((o, [k, v]) => { o[k] = v && typeof v === 'object' ? merge(o[k] = o[k] || (Array.isArray(v) ? [] : {}), v) : v; return o; }, a); } merge(state, {data: {data1: {ok: 'toto'}}})
deepmerge
deepmerge(state, {data: {data1: {ok: 'toto'}}})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
custom
deepmerge

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/107.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 107 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
custom	1285583.5 Ops/sec
deepmerge	302260.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided JSON benchmark data.

**Benchmark Overview**

The given JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case created on the MeasureThat.net website. The test compares two approaches for merging objects: a custom implementation and the DeepMerge library.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines an object `state` with nested properties:
```javascript
state = {
  data: {
    data1: {
      super: 'ok'
    }
  }
}
```
This object is used as input for both test cases.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a script tag that loads the DeepMerge library (version 4.2.2):
```html
<script src="https://unpkg.com/deepmerge@4.2.2/dist/umd.js"></script>
```
This library is used in one of the test cases.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Custom Implementation**
The benchmark definition code for this test case is:
```javascript
function merge(a, b) {
  return Object.entries(b).reduce((o, [k, v]) => {
    o[k] = v && typeof v === 'object'
      ? merge(o[k] = o[k] || (Array.isArray(v) ? [] : {}), v)
      : v;
    return o;
  }, a);
}
```
This custom implementation recursively merges two objects `a` and `b`. It checks if each property value is an object, and if so, calls itself with the property value as the new object to merge.

2. **DeepMerge Library**
The benchmark definition code for this test case is:
```javascript
deepmerge(state, { data: { data1: { ok: 'toto' } } });
```
This uses the DeepMerge library to perform the same merging operation as the custom implementation.

**Pros and Cons of Approaches**

Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages:

* **Custom Implementation**
  Pros:
	+ Customizable; allows for fine-grained control over the merging process.
	+ Can be optimized for specific use cases.
  Cons:
	+ More complex and error-prone to implement correctly.
	+ May not be as efficient as a specialized library like DeepMerge.

* **DeepMerge Library**
  Pros:
	+ Fast and efficient, optimized for performance.
	+ Supports various merging strategies (e.g., deep merge, union).
  Cons:
	+ Less customizable than the custom implementation.
	+ Dependence on an external library may introduce additional overhead.

**Library: DeepMerge**

The DeepMerge library is a JavaScript utility that provides various methods for merging objects. In this test case, it's used to perform the deep merge operation.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in these benchmark definitions. The code uses standard JavaScript language constructs and conventions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative libraries for object merging, some popular options include:

* Lodash's `merge` function
* Immutable.js's `mergeDeep`
* json merge libraries like `jsondiffpatch`

These alternatives offer different trade-offs between customization, performance, and complexity.

Related benchmarks:

deep merge vs custom (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: custom vs deepmerge

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

custom

deepmerge

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):