Performance Hit while merging really large JS objects even when merge deep is set to false about seamless-immutable

[rtfeldman]

Is the proposed solution that the Immutable would hold a mutable object?

[tusharmath]

I am not sure about this. There could be so many cases where you want to store it as an immutable. Though in this case we don't need it to be immutable.

[rtfeldman]

What I meant was - could there possibly be any other solution to the stated
problem besides leaving it as a mutable object?

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015, 4:19 AM Tushar Mathur [email protected]
wrote:

I am not sure about this. There could be so many cases where you want to
store it as an immutable. Though in this case we don't need it to be
immutable.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#72 (comment)
.

[tusharmath]

No. As per the above profiling it seems like the recursive conversion to Immutable takes a lot of time. I started facing this issue when I had a huge array of numbers that I wanted to plot on a graph.

How about doing it asynchronously?

[rtfeldman]

If asynchronous is a solution, that can already be done; if you pass an immutable instance to Immutable, it just uses the one it's given and doesn't recurse.

As a next step, I'd suggest trying that (just iterate over the object you're given and recurse asynchronously until you've built up what you need) and see if that solves the problem.