Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Lodash merge vs simple
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Merge vs Simple
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Merge
Simple
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):
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.
Related benchmarks:
trim vs lodash/fp
trim-loadsh vs native-trim
Includes Test
isEmpty vs. vanilla
trim-loadsh vs native-trim1
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?