Benchmark: _.merge vs _.cloneDeep + Object.assign v2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Tests:

_.merge
var customizationData = { a: 'oh', b: 'my' }; var tenantPolicy = { c: 'goddess', d: 'aaaaa' }; var result = _.merge(customizationData, tenantPolicy);
_.cloneDeep + Object.assign
var customizationData = { a: 'oh', b: 'my' }; var tenantPolicy = { c: 'goddess', d: 'aaaaa' }; var tenantPolicy1 = _.cloneDeep(tenantPolicy); var result = Object.assign(customizationData, tenantPolicy1);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.merge
_.cloneDeep + Object.assign

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 break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Test Cases**

The test cases are comparing the performance of two approaches:

1. **_.merge**: This method is part of the Lodash library and combines two objects into one, overriding existing keys with new values.
2. **_.cloneDeep + Object.assign**: This approach first creates a deep copy of the `tenantPolicy` object using `_cloneDeep`, and then merges it with `customizationData` using `Object.assign`. The resulting object is assigned back to `result`.

**Pros and Cons**

** _.merge **

Pros:

* Simple and concise code
* Works well for most use cases where only a subset of properties need to be merged
* Lodash library provides a familiar API

Cons:

* Can lead to unexpected behavior if the input objects have cyclic dependencies (not handled by `_.merge`)
* May not perform as well on very large datasets due to its iterative approach

** _.cloneDeep + Object.assign**

Pros:

* Provides a deep copy of the original object, which can be useful in certain scenarios
* Can handle cyclic dependencies and nested objects
* Allows for more control over the merging process (since `Object.assign` is called separately)

Cons:

* Requires an extra step to create a deep copy using `_cloneDeep`
* May lead to slower performance compared to a simple merge operation like _.merge

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* **Complexity of input data**: If your input objects are relatively simple and straightforward, `.merge` might be sufficient. However, if you have complex nested structures or cyclic dependencies, `_cloneDeep + Object.assign` might be a better choice.
* **Performance requirements**: If speed is crucial, `.merge` might be faster due to its iterative approach. However, if you need to handle large datasets or deep copying, `_cloneDeep + Object.assign` might be more suitable.
* **Code readability and maintainability**: If your codebase uses Lodash extensively, `_.merge` might be the more familiar and readable choice.

**Library: _.cloneDeep**

`.cloneDeep` is a utility function in Lodash that creates a deep copy of an object. It recursively traverses the original object's properties and creates new copies, handling nested objects and arrays.

In this benchmark, `.cloneDeep` is used to create a deep copy of `tenantPolicy`, which ensures that any modifications made to `result` do not affect the original `customizationData` or `tenantPolicy` objects.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided code.

Related benchmarks:

_.merge vs _.cloneDeep + Object.assign v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.merge vs _.cloneDeep + Object.assign

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

_.merge

_.cloneDeep + Object.assign

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):