Benchmark: Ramda vs. naive - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/ramda@0.26.0/dist/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var l = _.range(1000).reduce( (acc, i) => ({...acc, i:  { id: i, name: 'test' }}), {} )
var r = _.range(40).reduce((acc, i) => ({...acc, i: { id: i, name: "test" + i }}), {} )

var mergeMapsOfRecords = (obj1, obj2) => {
  const l = obj1 || {}
  const r = obj2 || {}

  const keys = Object.keys(r)

  const newMap = { ...l }

  for (const key of keys) {
    if (l.hasOwnProperty(key) && r.hasOwnProperty(key)) {
      newMap[key] = { ...l[key], ...r[key] }
    } else {
      newMap[key] = r[key]
    }
  }

  return newMap
}

Tests:

Ramda
const a = R.mergeDeepRight(l, r)
naive
const b = mergeMapsOfRecords(l, r)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ramda
naive

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to merging maps of records: Ramda's `mergeDeepRight` function and a naive implementation (let's call it "naive"). The benchmark aims to determine which approach is faster.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Ramda**: Uses the Ramda library, which provides a functional programming framework for JavaScript. Specifically, the `mergeDeepRight` function merges two maps of records recursively.
2. **Naive**: A custom implementation that also merges two maps of records. This approach is not optimized for performance and uses simple loops to iterate through the keys.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

* **Ramda**:
	+ Pros: More concise and expressive code, leveraging functional programming principles.
	+ Cons: May have slower execution times due to the overhead of the library and the recursive function calls.
* **Naive**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster in practice, as it avoids the overhead of a library and uses simple loops.
	+ Cons: Code is less concise and more verbose, making it harder to read and maintain.

**Library (Ramda)**

The Ramda library provides a set of higher-order functions for functional programming. In this case, `mergeDeepRight` is used to merge two maps of records recursively. The library also includes other useful functions for data processing, filtering, mapping, and reducing arrays.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of `reduce` and `Object.keys()` is typical for functional programming approaches in JavaScript.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to merging maps of records, here are a few options:

1. **Lodash**: Similar to Ramda, Lodash provides a set of utility functions, including `mergeDeepRight`. However, Lodash is generally considered slower than Ramda due to its larger size and complexity.
2. **Loose objects**: Another approach would be to use loose objects (e.g., `{ [key]: value }`) instead of maps. This approach can be faster in practice, as it avoids the overhead of map operations. However, it may not be as convenient or expressive as using maps and Ramda's `mergeDeepRight` function.
3. **Custom loop-based implementation**: As an alternative to the naive implementation, you could also explore a custom loop-based implementation that iterates through the keys manually. This approach would likely be slower than both Ramda and the naive implementation.

Overall, the benchmark provides a useful comparison of two approaches to merging maps of records: Ramda's `mergeDeepRight` function and a naive implementation. By analyzing the pros and cons of each approach, you can determine which one is best suited for your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Ramda vs. naive (version: 0)

perf

Comparing performance of: Ramda vs naive

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Ramda

naive

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):