const obj1 = { a: "a" };
const obj2 = { b: "b" };
window.obj1 = obj1;
window.obj2 = obj2;
const finalObject = {
c: "a",
obj1,
obj2
};
const finalObject = { c: "a" }
finalObject.a = obj1.a
finalObject.b = obj2.b
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Using the spread operator | |
Using direct assignment |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Using the spread operator | 6859493.5 Ops/sec |
Using direct assignment | 8469316.0 Ops/sec |
Let's break down what's being tested in this JavaScript benchmark.
Benchmark Definition
The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between two approaches:
...
) to merge objectsOptions Compared
We have two options being compared:
...
) to merge obj1
and obj2
into a single object, finalObject
. The syntax for this is: { ...obj1, ...obj2 }
obj1
and obj2
directly to finalObject
, like so: finalObject.a = obj1.a; finalObject.b = obj2.b
Pros and Cons
Using the spread operator:
Pros:
Cons:
Direct assignment:
Pros:
Cons:
Other Considerations
Both approaches have their trade-offs in terms of performance and readability. The spread operator approach is generally considered more modern and concise, but might incur a slight performance penalty due to object creation and merging.
Library Used
The benchmark uses the window
object to assign variables obj1
and obj2
as global variables. This is likely done for simplicity and ease of use in the test case.
Special JS Feature or Syntax
This benchmark does not rely on any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's considered standard at this point (ES6+). If you were to add a feature like const
declarations, arrow functions, or async/await, it might impact the benchmark results. However, since the test cases are relatively simple, these features do not appear to be relevant here.
Alternatives
Other alternatives for creating objects with merged properties could include:
Object.assign()
method: finalObject = Object.assign({}, obj1, obj2)
merge
function for merging objects