Benchmark: Configuration - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<div id=''></div>

Script Preparation code:

var a = {}
let ak = 1000
while (ak--) a[ak] = ak + .1

var b = {}
let bk = 500
while (bk--) b[bk] = Math.random()

Tests:

Object.assign
Object.assign(a, b)
Object.keys & for..of
for (const key of Object.keys(b)) { a[key] = b[key] }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.assign
Object.keys & for..of

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.

I'll break down the provided benchmark JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that contains information about the test case:
```json
{
    "Name": "Configuration",
    "Description": null,
    "Script Preparation Code": "var a = {}\r\nlet ak = 1000\r\nwhile (ak--) a[ak] = ak + .1\r\n\r\nvar b = {}\r\nlet bk = 500\r\nwhile (bk--) b[bk] = Math.random()",
    "Html Preparation Code": "<div id=''></div>"
}
```
This script preparation code sets up two objects, `a` and `b`, using a while loop. Object `a` is populated with values from 0 to 999, incrementing by 0.1, while object `b` is populated with random numbers between 0 and 499.

The HTML preparation code creates an empty `<div>` element with the id "nothing", which is not used in this benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:
```json
[
    {
        "Benchmark Definition": "Object.assign(a, b)",
        "Test Name": "Object.assign"
    },
    {
        "Benchmark Definition": "for (const key of Object.keys(b)) {\r\n  a[key] = b[key]\r\n}",
        "Test Name": "Object.keys & for..of"
    }
]
```
The first test case, `Object.assign(a, b)`, uses the built-in `Object.assign()` method to merge objects `a` and `b`.

The second test case, `Object.keys & for..of`, uses the `Object.keys()` method to get an array of keys from object `b` and then uses a `for...of` loop to iterate over those keys, assigning each value to `a[key]`.

**Pros/Cons**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Object.assign(a, b)**:
	* Pros: Simple and efficient way to merge objects.
	* Cons: Can be slower for large objects due to the overhead of creating a new object and copying properties.
2. **for...of & Object.keys()**:
	* Pros: Allows for more control over the merging process (e.g., filtering or transforming keys).
	* Cons: May be slower than `Object.assign()` due to the additional iterations.

**Library**

There is no specific library being used in these benchmark test cases. However, `Math.random()` is a built-in JavaScript function that generates random numbers.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's standard in modern browsers.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement this benchmark yourself, some alternatives could be:

* Using `Array.prototype.forEach()` instead of `for...of` and `Object.keys()`.
* Using a library like Lodash or Ramda for object merging.
* Using a different data structure, such as an array or a Map, to store the objects being merged.

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these approaches are relatively small and may depend on specific use cases and browser implementations.

Related benchmarks:

Configuration (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object.assign vs Object.keys & for..of

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.assign

Object.keys & for..of

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):