Benchmark: Teste perfm if - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var resultado = {

	data: {

		statusProcessamento: {
			message: "hello:"


}



}





}

Tests:

lodash
if(_.has(resultado, "data.statusProcessamento.message")) { return resultado; }
ownprop
if(resultado.hasOwnProperty("data.statusProcessamento.message")) { return resultado; }
chain
if(resultado && resultado.data && resultado.data.statusProcessamento && resultado.data.statusProcessamento.message) { return resultado; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
ownprop
chain

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/75.0.131.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash	1963953.6 Ops/sec
ownprop	14221390.0 Ops/sec
chain	3172192.2 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON for you.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `benchmark definition` represents a test case that compares different approaches to check if a specific value exists in an object. The main differences between these approaches are:

1.  **Lodash (`_.has()` or `_.property()`):** This method uses the underscore library, which provides utility functions for JavaScript.
    *   **Pros:** Widely used and well-maintained; provides additional functionality beyond basic existence checks (e.g., `_.get()`, `_.isString()`).
    *   **Cons:** Adds an external dependency (the Lodash library), which can increase bundle size and complexity. May not be suitable for small projects or those with strict dependencies.
2.  **Own Property (`hasOwnProperty()`):** This method checks if the object has a specific property using the `hasOwnProperty()` function, which is part of the JavaScript standard library.
    *   **Pros:** No additional dependencies required; straightforward and easy to understand.
    *   *Cons:* Uses a more outdated approach (pre-ES6); might not be as efficient or reliable for modern use cases.
3.  **Chain (`&&` chaining):** This method checks multiple nested properties using the logical AND operator (`&&`), which is part of the JavaScript standard library.
    *   **Pros:** Lightweight and easy to understand; no additional dependencies required.
    *   *Cons:* Requires a specific structure for the object (e.g., `data.statusProcessamento.message`); might not be as readable or maintainable.

**Library:**

The Lodash library is used in one of the benchmark definitions (`_.has()`). It provides utility functions for JavaScript, including existence checks like `_.has()`, which can simplify code and improve readability.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The test cases only rely on basic JavaScript operations and standard library functions (like `hasOwnProperty()`).

**Other alternatives:**

Some alternative approaches to existence checks include:

*   **Using the `in` operator:** This can be used as an alternative to `hasOwnProperty()`. However, it has different behavior than `hasOwnProperty()` when checking for own enumerable properties. (e.g., `"name" in obj === true`, but `"obj.name" in obj === true`).
*   **Using `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call()`:** This method is a more modern and efficient way to check if an object has a specific property, using the `hasOwnProperty()` function from the prototype chain.
*   **Using a library like `deep-equal` or `deep-equals`:** These libraries provide functions for deep equality checks, which can be useful in certain situations.

Overall, this benchmark is designed to compare different approaches to existence checks, highlighting the trade-offs between using external libraries (like Lodash), standard JavaScript operations, and more specialized solutions.

Related benchmarks:

Teste perfm if (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs ownprop vs chain

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

ownprop

chain

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):