Benchmark: When use Immutable

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/immutable.js/4.0.0-rc.2/immutable.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var MyObject = {
  description: 'a',
  myNumber: 123456789,
  myBoolean: true,
  inner: {
    description: 'a',
    myNumber: 123456789,
    myBoolean: true,
    inner: {
      description: 'a',
      myNumber: 123456789,
      myBoolean: true,
      inner: {
        description: 'a',
        myNumber: 123456789,
        myBoolean: true,
        inner: {
          description: 'a',
          myNumber: 123456789,
          myBoolean: true,
          inner: {
            description: 'a',
            myNumber: 123456789,
            myBoolean: true,
            inner: {
              description: 'a',
              myNumber: 123456789,
              myBoolean: true,
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
};

var MyMap = Immutable.fromJS(MyObject);

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

Lodash cloneDeep
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
Immutable toJS
//myCopy = {...MyObject}; myCopy = MyMap.toJS();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash cloneDeep
Immutable toJS

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 the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using Lodash's `cloneDeep` function to create a deep copy of an object, and using Immutable.js's `toJS()` method to convert an Immutable object into a plain JavaScript object.

**Script Preparation Code**

The preparation code creates an immutable object `MyObject` with nested properties. The script also initializes two variables: `myCopy` (initialized as null), which will be used for the first test, and `MyMap`, which is created by converting `MyObject` to an Immutable object using `Immutable.fromJS()`. This setup allows us to compare the performance of creating a deep copy with Lodash versus converting an Immutable object to a plain JavaScript object.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML code includes scripts for Lodash (version 4.17.5) and Immutable.js (version 4.0.0-rc.2). These libraries are used by the benchmark tests.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**
	* The `Benchmark Definition` script uses `_.cloneDeep(MyObject)` to create a deep copy of `MyObject`.
	* This function creates a new object with all nested properties recursively cloned.
2. **Immutable toJS**
	* The `Benchmark Definition` script uses `myCopy = MyMap.toJS()` to convert the Immutable object `MyMap` into a plain JavaScript object.
	* This method converts the Immutable object's data structure into a plain JavaScript object, effectively creating a shallow copy of its nested properties.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**
	* Pros:
		+ Deep copies are more accurate (i.e., they preserve all nested properties).
		+ Can be used for complex data structures.
	* Cons:
		+ Slower performance due to the recursive cloning process.
2. **Immutable toJS**
	* Pros:
		+ Faster execution time since it only converts the top-level data structure, not recursively cloning all nested properties.
		+ Uses Immutable.js's optimized data structure algorithms.
	* Cons:
		+ May lose some precision in deeply nested objects (i.e., may discard some of the innermost values).
		+ Not suitable for complex data structures.

**Device and Browser Variations**

The benchmark uses a specific Chrome 71 browser running on a Macintosh with Intel hardware, which might not be representative of all possible devices and browsers. The results should be taken into account when comparing performance across different environments.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches could be used to create copies or conversions:

1. **Plain JavaScript Object Creation**
	* `const myCopy = { ...MyObject };` (shallow copy)
	* `const myCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject));` (deep copy)
2. **Other Immutable.js Methods**
	* `myCopy = MyMap.toList()` or `myCopy = MyMap.toArray()` for shallow conversions
3. **Other Deep Copy Libraries**
	* e.g., `lodash-es` with its `cloneDeepES6` function

In conclusion, the benchmark measures the trade-off between deep copying and converting Immutable objects to plain JavaScript objects. Lodash's `cloneDeep` provides more accurate results but is slower, while Immutable.js's `toJS()` method offers faster execution times at the cost of some precision in deeply nested objects.

Related benchmarks:

When use Immutable (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Immutable toJS

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Immutable toJS

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):