Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Loadash Merge vs Native merge
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
loadash merge vs Native merge
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Tests:
loadash merge
var a = { a: 'oh', b: 'my' }; var b = { c: 'goddess' }; var c = _.merge(a, b);
Native merge
var merge = (t,s)=>{const o=Object,a=o.assign;for(const k of o.keys(s))s[k]instanceof o&&a(s[k],merge(t[k],s[k]));return a(t||{},s),t} var a = { a: 'oh', b: 'my' }; var b = { c: 'goddess' }; var c = merge(a, b);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
loadash merge
Native merge
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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches for merging objects in JavaScript: using the `lodash` library and implementing a custom merge function. **Options Compared** Two options are compared: 1. **Lodash Merge**: The benchmark uses the `_.merge()` function from the Lodash library, which provides a convenient way to merge two objects recursively. 2. **Native Merge**: The second option implements a custom merge function using a simple iterative approach. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** **Lodash Merge:** Pros: * Easy to use and understand * Provides a robust implementation with support for recursive merging * Reduces the risk of errors due to its well-tested codebase Cons: * Introduces an external dependency (the Lodash library) * May have overhead due to the need to load and initialize the library **Native Merge:** Pros: * No external dependencies, reducing overhead and complexity * Allows for fine-grained control over the merging process Cons: * Requires more manual effort and understanding of the implementation * May contain errors or bugs if not implemented correctly **Library Used (Lodash)** The Lodash library is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for common tasks, including array manipulation, string manipulation, and object merging. In this benchmark, the `_.merge()` function is used to perform the merging. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** None mentioned in this specific benchmark, but it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript features like `async/await`, classes, or es6+ syntax might be used in other benchmarks. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for object merging include: * Using the built-in `Object.assign()` method * Implementing a custom merge function using recursion or iteration (as shown in the Native Merge option) * Using a dedicated library like `immer` or `deepmerge` * Leveraging functional programming concepts, such as immutability and map/reduce Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs and may be more suitable for specific use cases or performance-critical applications.
Related benchmarks:
lodash merge vs object.assign vs spread 3
lodash merge vs deepmerge vs lodash/fp merge
lodash merge vs deepmerge latest CDN
lodash merge vs deepmerge 4.2.2 vs own merge implementation
Lodash merge vs mergedeep 1
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?