Benchmark: Immer vs shallow copy222ddd

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/immer@6.0.5/dist/immer.umd.production.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = { items: {}, count: 0, keys: [] }

for (let index = 0; index < 100; index++) {
  data.items[index] = { id: index, name: `ITEM-${index}`, value: Math.random() }
  data.count++
  data.keys.push(index)
}

var NEW_ITEM_ID = data.count +1

var produce = immer.default

Tests:

immer
var x = 0; data = produce(data, draft => { draft.keys.forEach(i => x += draft.items[i].id); })
shallow copy
var x = 0; data.keys.forEach(i => x += data.items[i].id);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
immer
shallow copy

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 JSON benchmark definition and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two different approaches to update a JavaScript object:

1. **Shallow copy**: The first test case uses a simple loop to iterate over an array of objects (`data.items`) and updates a variable `x` with the sum of IDs of these objects.
2. **Immer**: The second test case uses the Immer library to create a new draft of the original object (`data`) and updates a variable `x` with the sum of IDs of the updated objects in the draft.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Shallow copy: A simple, manual iteration over the array of objects and updating the variable `x`.
* Immer: Using the Immer library to create a new draft of the object and update the variable `x`.

**Pros and Cons**

**Shallow copy:**

Pros:

* Simple, easy to understand
* No external dependencies required

Cons:

* May lead to performance issues due to the need for manual iteration over the array
* Not efficient in terms of memory usage

**Immer:**

Pros:

* Efficient in terms of performance and memory usage
* Reduces boilerplate code and makes updates more concise

Cons:

* Requires an external library (Immer) to be included
* May have overhead due to the creation of a new draft object

**Other considerations**

In addition to the options being compared, other factors that may affect the results include:

* The specific implementation of the shallow copy approach (e.g., using `for...in` instead of `forEach`)
* The version of the Immer library used
* Any additional dependencies or overhead in the benchmarking environment

**Library and syntax**

The test case uses the Immer library, which is a popular library for managing state changes in JavaScript applications. The Immer API provides a simple way to create a new draft of an object and update it incrementally.

There is no special JS feature or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches that could be considered instead of shallow copy or Immer include:

* Using the `Array.prototype.forEach()` method with a callback function
* Using a library like Lodash, which provides utility functions for working with arrays and objects
* Using a functional programming approach, such as using `map()` and `reduce()`

However, these alternatives may not provide the same level of performance or conciseness as Immer.

Related benchmarks:

Immer vs shallow copy222ddd (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: immer vs shallow copy

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

immer

shallow copy

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):