Benchmark: Object.assign Spread vs Object.assign.apply

HTML Preparation code:


<script>
  const batch = [
  { foo: 'foo' },
  { bar: 'bar' },
  { baz: 'baz' }
]

</script>

Tests:

Object.assign Spread
Object.assign(Object, ...batch)
Object.assign.apply
Object.assign.apply(Object, batch)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.assign Spread
Object.assign.apply

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining the benchmark and its various components.

**What is tested:**
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two different approaches for assigning values to an object using the `Object.assign()` method. The test case consists of three objects (`batch`) being assigned to an initial object (`Object`).

**Options compared:**

1. **`Object.assign(Object, ...batch)`**: This approach uses the spread operator (`...`) to unpack the array of objects (`batch`) and assign their properties to the `Object`.
2. **`Object.assign.apply(Object, batch)`**: This approach uses the `apply()` method to call `Object.assign()` with the initial object as the first argument and the array of objects (`batch`) as the second argument.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **`Object.assign(Object, ...batch)`**:
	+ Pros: More readable and concise syntax, takes advantage of modern JavaScript features.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of creating a new spread expression.
* **`Object.assign.apply(Object, batch)`**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster since it avoids the creation of a new spread expression, but may be less readable.
	+ Cons: Less concise syntax and may require additional setup (e.g., defining `apply()` behavior).

**Library and its purpose:**
The provided benchmark uses no external libraries. However, if any libraries were used, they would likely be utilized for utility functions or helper methods.

**Special JS features/syntax:**
This benchmark uses modern JavaScript features, specifically the spread operator (`...`) introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). The `apply()` method has been available since ECMAScript 1.0.

**Other considerations:**

* **Performance:** Microbenchmarks like this one aim to isolate performance differences between different approaches. In a real-world scenario, the performance difference might be negligible or influenced by other factors.
* **Readability and maintainability:** The chosen approach's readability and maintainability are crucial for understanding and working with the code.

**Alternatives:**
If you're looking for alternative microbenchmarks or want to explore different approaches, consider:

1. Other JavaScript performance benchmarking platforms like [jsperf](https://perfectionist.jsperf.com/) or [Benchmarking](https://benchmarkjs.com/).
2. Built-in browser performance testing tools, such as Chrome's Performance Analyzer.
3. General-purpose microbenchmarks for specific libraries or frameworks (e.g., React, Angular, Node.js).

When preparing a benchmark like this one, keep in mind the importance of:

* Clear and concise test cases
* Consistent setup and execution order
* Adequate hardware and software resources
* Representative user scenarios

By considering these factors, you can ensure your microbenchmark accurately represents real-world use cases and provides meaningful insights into performance differences.

Related benchmarks:

Object.assign Spread vs Object.assign.apply (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object.assign Spread vs Object.assign.apply

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.assign Spread

Object.assign.apply

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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