<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/immutable/3.8.2/immutable.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/immutability-helper@2.7.0/index.min.js"></script>
let obj = {};
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++){
const key = 'key'+i
const value = 'value'+i
obj = {obj, [key]: {key, value}}
}
let obj = Immutable.Map();
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++){
const key = 'key'+i
const value = 'value'+i
obj = obj.set(key, {key, value})
}
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
object spread | |
immutable-js |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
object spread | 0.0 Ops/sec |
immutable-js | 47.6 Ops/sec |
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.
What is being tested?
The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases: object spread
and immutable-js map
. The tests compare the performance of creating and updating an object using two different approaches:
...
) to create a new object with updated properties.Options being compared
The benchmark compares two options for creating an object:
Pros and Cons
Here are some pros and cons of each approach:
Library usage
The benchmark uses two libraries:
Special JS feature or syntax
There are no special features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. Both options use standard JavaScript constructs: object spread (...
) and Immutable.js map updates.
Other alternatives
If you're looking for alternative approaches to creating objects, consider:
Array.prototype.concat()
or Array.prototype.reduce()
can create a new object.function Person(name, age) { ... }
) can be another option.Keep in mind that the best approach depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as performance, readability, and maintainability.