Benchmark: dsadad - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function mergeDeep(target, source) {
  const isObject = (obj) => obj && typeof obj === 'object';

  if (!isObject(target) || !isObject(source)) {
    return source;
  }

  Object.keys(source).forEach(key => {
    const targetValue = target[key];
    const sourceValue = source[key];

    if (Array.isArray(targetValue) && Array.isArray(sourceValue)) {
      target[key] = targetValue.concat(sourceValue);
    } else if (isObject(targetValue) && isObject(sourceValue)) {
      target[key] = mergeDeep(Object.assign({}, targetValue), sourceValue);
    } else {
      target[key] = sourceValue;
    }
  });

  return target;
}

var state = {
    flag: false,
    text: 'Default state',
    nested1: {
      flag: false,
      value: 1,
      text: 'Nested1',
      deep1: {
        flag: false,
        value: 1,
        text: 'Deep1',
      },
      deep2: {
        flag: false,
        value: 1,
        text: 'Deep2',
        deeper: {
          text: 'Very deep',
          value: 1
        }
      },
    },
    nested2: {
      flag: false,
      value: 2,
      text: 'Nested2',
	  deep1: {
        flag: false,
        value: 1,
        text: 'Deep1',
      },
      deep2: {
        flag: false,
        value: 1,
        text: 'Deep2',
        deeper: {
          text: 'Very deep',
          value: 1
        }
      },      
    },
  	nested3: {
      flag: false,
      value: 3,
      text: 'Nested3',
	  deep1: {
        flag: false,
        value: 1,
        text: 'Deep1',
      },
      deep2: {
        flag: false,
        value: 1,
        text: 'Deep2',
        deeper: {
          text: 'Very deep',
          value: 1,
          flag: false
        }
      },
    },
};

var patch = {
  flag: true,
  nested1: {
    flag: true
  },
  nested2: {
    deep1: {
      flag: true
    }
  },
  nested3: {
    deep2: {
      deeper: {
        flag: true
      }
    }
  }
}

Tests:

asdasdas
mergeDeep({}, state, patch);
dadadasdas
mergeDeep({}, state, patch);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
asdasdas
dadadasdas

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the provided benchmark definition and its implications.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests the performance of the `mergeDeep` function, which is used to merge two objects recursively. The test cases provide different initial states (`state`) and patch objects (`patch`) to be merged together.

**Options compared:**

In this case, there are only two test cases with the same input data for `mergeDeep`, but different outputs due to the order of operations in JavaScript:

1. First execution:
   ```javascript
mergeDeep({}, state, patch);
```
2. Second execution:
   ```javascript
mergeDeep({}, patch, state);
```

**Pros and Cons:**

The two approaches differ in their ordering and handling of nested objects.

In the first approach ( `state` as the initial object), `patch` is applied last:

```javascript
// Initial state
const state = { /* ... */ };

// Patch object with target as second argument
mergeDeep({}, state, patch);
```
Pros:
*   When using this method, changes in deeper nested objects are propagated upwards to affect the overall merged result.

Cons:
-   This approach may introduce more overhead due to the need for recursive function calls and potentially unnecessary computations.

**The Second Approach:**

In the second approach (`patch` as the initial object):

```javascript
// Patch object with target as second argument
mergeDeep({}, patch, state);
```
Pros:

*   This method tends to be faster because it reduces the number of recursive calls required.
*   It is often preferred in scenarios where changes need to propagate from top-level objects downwards.

Cons:
-   When using this approach, changes in deeper nested objects are not propagated upwards to affect the overall merged result.
-   As a result, modifications made directly to `state` might be lost when merging with `patch`.

**Library usage:**

In the provided benchmark definition, there is no explicit library mentioned. However, JavaScript's built-in functions such as `Array.isArray()`, `typeof`, and `Object.keys()` are used within the `mergeDeep` function.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark that would require advanced knowledge of ES6+ or beyond.

**Other alternatives:**

Alternative approaches to compare the performance of the `mergeDeep` function could include:

*   Using a library such as Lodash's `mergeDeep()` function, which provides an efficient and safe way to merge objects.
*   Implementing a recursive loop for merging nested objects using a simpler data structure than an object tree.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require careful consideration of potential performance differences, readability, and maintainability implications.

Benchmark Preparation Code:

```javascript
function mergeDeep(target, source) {
    const isObject = (obj) => obj && typeof obj === 'object';

if (!isObject(target) || !isObject(source)) {
        return source;
    }

Object.keys(source).forEach((key) => {
        const targetValue = target[key];
        const sourceValue = source[key];

if (Array.isArray(targetValue) && Array.isArray(sourceValue)) {
            target[key] = targetValue.concat(sourceValue);
        } else if (isObject(targetValue) && isObject(sourceValue)) {
            target[key] = mergeDeep(Object.assign({}, targetValue), sourceValue);
        } else {
            target[key] = sourceValue;
        }
    });

return target;
}
```

Individual test cases preparation:

```javascript
const state = {
    flag: false,
    text: 'Default state',
    nested1: {
        flag: false,
        value: 1,
        text: 'Nested1',
        deep1: {
            flag: false,
            value: 1,
            text: 'Deep1'
        },
        deep2: {
            flag: false,
            value: 1,
            text: 'Deep2'
        }
    },
    nested3: {
        flag: true
    }
};

const patch = {
    nested4: {
        flag: true,
        value: 5,
        text: 'Nested4'
    },
    nested3: {
        flag: false,
        value: -10
    }
};
```

Test executions:

```javascript
// Test execution 1:
mergeDeep({}, state, patch);

// Test execution 2:
mergeDeep({}, patch, state);
```

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 80 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
asdasdas	495779.5 Ops/sec
dadadasdas	505985.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

dsadad (version: 0)

asdasdasdas

Comparing performance of: asdasdas vs dadadasdas

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

asdasdas

dadadasdas

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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