Benchmark: object spread vs immutable-js set vs object mutate

HTML Preparation code:

<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>

Tests:

object spread
let obj = {}; for(i=0;i<100;i++){ const key = 'key'+i const value = 'value'+i obj = {...obj, [key]: {key, value}} }
immutable-js
let obj = Immutable.Map(); for(i=0;i<100;i++){ const key = 'key'+i const value = 'value'+i obj = obj.set(key, {key, value}) }
object mutate
let obj = {}; for(i=0;i<100;i++){ const key = 'key'+i const value = 'value'+i obj[key] = value; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
object spread
immutable-js
object mutate

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark JSON and test cases.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three approaches for creating or modifying objects in JavaScript:

1. Object Spread (`object spread`)
2. Immutable.js Set (using `Immutable.Map` and `set` method) (`immutable-js`)
3. Direct Property Assignment (`object mutate`)

**Options Compared:**

* **Object Spread**: uses the spread operator (`...`) to create a new object with merged properties.
* **Immutable.js Set**: uses the `Immutable.Map` data structure, which is designed for immutable data structures, and the `set` method to update values.
* **Direct Property Assignment**: uses direct property assignment (`obj[key] = value;`) to add or modify existing properties.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Object Spread**:
	* Pros: efficient and concise way to create new objects with merged properties, allows for easy addition of new properties.
	* Cons: can be slower than direct property assignment due to the overhead of creating a new object, may not be suitable for very large datasets.
2. **Immutable.js Set**:
	* Pros: provides an immutable data structure, which can help prevent unintended side effects in concurrent code, and is optimized for performance.
	* Cons: requires importing additional libraries (Immutable.js), can be slower than direct property assignment due to the overhead of creating a new `Immutable.Map` instance, and may not be suitable for very large datasets.
3. **Direct Property Assignment**:
	* Pros: simple and efficient way to add or modify existing properties, does not require any additional libraries.
	* Cons: can lead to unintended side effects if not used carefully (e.g., when working with mutable objects), may result in slower performance due to the overhead of property assignment.

**Library Descriptions:**

1. **Immutable.js**: a library for creating immutable data structures in JavaScript. It provides a range of data structures, including `Map`, `Set`, and `Record`, which can be used to create immutable data that cannot be changed once created.
2. **Immutability Helper**: a library that provides utility functions for working with immutable data structures.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

1. The benchmark uses the spread operator (`...`) for object creation, which is a relatively modern feature introduced in ECMAScript 2018 (ES9).
2. The `Immutable.Map` and `set` method are used to create an immutable map and update values, respectively.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you want to use alternative approaches for creating or modifying objects in JavaScript, some other options include:

1. Using a library like Lodash, which provides utility functions for working with arrays and objects.
2. Using the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method to create new objects with merged properties.
3. Using a caching mechanism (e.g., memoization) to optimize object creation or property assignment.

However, these alternatives may have their own trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability, so it's essential to consider the specific requirements of your use case when choosing an approach.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_4) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/81.0.4044.113 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 81 on Mac OS X 10.15.4

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
object spread	4249.9 Ops/sec
immutable-js	37954.5 Ops/sec
object mutate	66914.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

object spread vs immutable-js set vs object mutate (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: object spread vs immutable-js vs object mutate

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

object spread

immutable-js

object mutate

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):