Benchmark: Immutable toJS vs set

HTML Preparation code:

<script type='text/javascript' src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/immutable/3.8.2/immutable.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

let testObj = {};
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
  testObj[i] = i;
}

var testImmutable = Immutable.fromJS(testObj);

Tests:

Immutable toJS
let result = testImmutable.toJS(); for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { result[i] *= 2; } result = Immutable.fromJS(result);
Immutable set
let result = testImmutable; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { result = result.set(i, i*2); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Immutable toJS
Immutable set

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 the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using `toJS()` method to convert an Immutable.js object to a plain JavaScript object, and using the `set()` method to modify an Immutable.js object directly.

**Options compared:**

1. **Immutable.toJS()**: This method creates a new shallow copy of the Immutable.js object as a plain JavaScript object.
2. **Immutable.set()**: This method modifies the Immutable.js object in place by setting a value on a specific key.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Immutable.toJS()**:
	+ Pros:
		- Can be used to convert an Immutable.js object to a plain JavaScript object for further processing or manipulation.
		- Creates a new copy, which can be beneficial when working with data that needs to be preserved in its original state.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an extra step of creating a new object, which can lead to increased memory usage and potential performance overhead.
		- May not be as efficient as modifying the Immutable.js object directly if the modifications are simple and only involve setting values.
* **Immutable.set()**:
	+ Pros:
		- Modifies the Immutable.js object in place, reducing memory allocation and garbage collection overhead.
		- Can lead to better performance when working with large datasets or complex modifications.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slower than creating a new plain JavaScript object if the modification involves setting multiple values or creating new keys.

**Library:**

The benchmark uses Immutable.js, a library that provides data structures and utilities for functional programming in JavaScript. Its main purpose is to provide immutable data structures, allowing developers to reason about their code more predictably and avoid side effects.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark.

Now, let's talk about alternative approaches:

* **Using plain JavaScript objects**: Instead of using Immutable.js or `toJS()`, you could create a plain JavaScript object and modify it directly. However, this approach would require manual management of memory allocation and garbage collection.
* **Using other data structures**: Depending on the specific use case, other data structures like ArrayBuffers or Web Workers might provide better performance or efficiency for certain operations.
* **Custom implementation**: In some cases, a custom implementation using low-level optimizations or native code might be necessary to achieve optimal performance. However, this would require expertise in JavaScript internals and optimization techniques.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as data structure size, modification complexity, and memory constraints.

Related benchmarks:

Immutable toJS vs set (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Immutable toJS vs Immutable set

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Immutable toJS

Immutable set

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):