Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
3E051086-B9C1-4B54-A2DD-F8C245690AE8
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Using the spread operator vs Using Object.assign
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Using the spread operator
const firstObject = { sampleData: 'Hello world' } const secondObject = { moreData: 'foo bar' } const finalObject = { ...firstObject, ...secondObject };
Using Object.assign
const firstObject = { sampleData: 'Hello world' } const secondObject = { moreData: 'foo bar' } const finalObject = Object.assign({}, firstObject, secondObject);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Using the spread operator
Using 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):
I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark. **Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents two test cases that compare the performance of two different approaches for merging objects in JavaScript: using the spread operator (`...`) and `Object.assign()`. **Test Cases** There are only two individual test cases: 1. **"Using the spread operator"`**: This test case has a benchmark definition that creates three objects: `firstObject`, `secondObject`, and `finalObject`. The final object is created by using the spread operator (`...`) to merge the properties of `firstObject` and `secondObject`. 2. **"Using Object.assign"`**: This test case has a similar benchmark definition, but instead of using the spread operator, it uses `Object.assign()` to merge the properties of `firstObject` and `secondObject`. **Options Compared** The two approaches being compared are: 1. **Spread Operator (`...`)** * Pros: + More concise and expressive way to merge objects. + Can be faster in some cases, as it avoids the overhead of function calls. * Cons: + May not work correctly if the object keys are not strings or symbols. + Can lead to unexpected behavior if the spread operator is used with a non-object value. 2. **`Object.assign()`** * Pros: + Well-established and widely supported. + Provides more control over the merging process, as it allows for specifying a target object. * Cons: + Can be less concise than using the spread operator. + May involve unnecessary function calls, which can impact performance. **Library Used** Neither of these test cases uses any external libraries. The `Object.assign()` method is a built-in JavaScript method that is available in all modern browsers and Node.js environments. **Special JS Features/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases. **Other Considerations** When benchmarking the performance of object merging, it's essential to consider factors such as: * The size and complexity of the objects being merged. * The number of properties being copied. * The presence of cyclic references or other edge cases. * The specific browser or JavaScript engine being used. In this case, both test cases are relatively simple and focus on demonstrating the basic performance difference between using the spread operator and `Object.assign()`. More comprehensive benchmarking may involve additional factors to ensure accurate results. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for merging objects in JavaScript include: * Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js, which provide more robust and feature-rich object merging utilities. * Implementing custom merge functions using recursion or iteration. * Using template literals (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to create new objects by concatenating properties. However, these alternatives may not be as straightforward or concise as using the spread operator or `Object.assign()`, and their performance characteristics may vary depending on the specific use case.
Related benchmarks:
UUID Test 3
UUID V4 Crypto vs Math
Benchmark b62c8ffd-0b9f-4f90-a558-4539bdf7335c
bmm tests2
RegEx vs Reduce
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?