Benchmark: Lodash merge vs simple

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="lodash.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.localizations = [{
  locale: 'en',
  name: 'name',
  short_name: 'short_name',
  summary: 'summary',
  description: 'description',
}, {
  locale: 'zh-TW',
  name: 'name',
  short_name: 'short_name',
  summary: 'summary',
  description: 'description',
}, {
  locale: 'zh-Hant',
  name: 'name',
  short_name: 'short_name',
  summary: 'summary',
  description: 'description',
}, {
  locale: 'zh-Hans',
  name: 'name',
  short_name: 'short_name',
  summary: 'summary',
  description: 'description',
}]

Tests:

Merge
const def = (window.localizations || []).find(item => item.locale === 'en') || {}; const locale = (window.localizations || []).find(item => item.locale === 'zh-Hans') || {}; const localization = _.merge({}, def, locale);
Simple
const localization = window.localizations.find(item => item.locale === 'zh-Hans') || window.localizations.find(item => item.locale === 'en') || {}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Merge
Simple

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests two approaches to merge language localizations:

1. **Simple**: It finds the localization object for the specified locale (`zh-Hans`) and then uses it as a base object to merge with another localization object found for `en` (English).
2. **Lodash Merge** (`_.merge`:): It uses the Lodash library's `merge` function to merge two objects.

**Options compared**

The simple approach directly finds the desired locale objects and merges them, while the Lodash approach uses a specialized function to handle the merging.

**Pros and Cons**

**Simple Approach:**

Pros:

* Lightweight and straightforward
* No external dependencies needed (only built-in JavaScript)

Cons:

* May not work if there are multiple localizations for each locale or if localization objects have complex structures.
* Can be slow if the browser needs to iterate through a large array of locales.

**Lodash Merge Approach:**

Pros:

* Robust and efficient, handling complex object structures and edge cases
* Uses an established library with a proven track record

Cons:

* Requires including Lodash as an external dependency
* May add unnecessary overhead due to the extra library size

**Library and Purpose**

The Lodash library is a popular collection of reusable JavaScript functions for tasks like array manipulation, object merging, and more. The `merge` function is specifically designed to handle complex object merging scenarios.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There isn't any specific syntax or feature being tested here, but it's worth noting that both approaches rely on the fact that modern browsers support arrays and object iteration for efficient data retrieval.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other approaches or libraries for merging localizations, consider:

* Using a different library like Immutable.js or Ramda for functional programming
* Implementing your own custom merge function using JavaScript's built-in features (e.g., `Object.assign()`, `Array.prototype.reduce()`)

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs and may be more suitable depending on the specific requirements of your project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/56.0.2924.87 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 56 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Merge	338817.6 Ops/sec
Simple	2383866.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash merge vs simple (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Merge vs Simple

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Merge

Simple

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):