Benchmark: test124124124124

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/query-string/7.0.1/index.js" integrity="sha512-hs6211OQsgsotrLyrc+5nIuc0Ht/6ioUpBRzTe+g1xFjYkAo5AYJKNQl6eD5WZt2Lv6HHEEg0aYYqTuFF34ALg==" crossorigin="anonymous" referrerpolicy="no-referrer"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var req = {
  query: {
    click_key: 'click_key_value',
    run_key: 'run_key_value',
  },
};

var externalEvents = [
  {
    origin_query_params: 'click_key',
    code: 'cookie-oven',
  },
  {
    origin_query_params: 'run_key',
    code: 'cookie-run_key',
  },
  {
    origin_query_params: 'invalid_key',
    code: 'invalid_value',
  },
];

Tests:

_.get + stringify
var q = externalEvents.reduce((acc, curr) => { var queryVal = _.get(req.query, curr.origin_query_params); if (queryVal) { return { ...acc, [curr.code]: queryVal }; } return acc; }, {});
native
Object.entries(req.query).map(([key, value]) => { var [event] = externalEvents.filter((e) => e.origin_query_params === key) if (event) { return `${event.code}=${value}` } return '' // return `${key}=${value}` }).filter(Boolean).join('&');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.get + stringify
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.106 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.get + stringify	626701.9 Ops/sec
native	883877.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in this benchmark and the different approaches used.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case on MeasureThat.net. The test aims to compare two approaches for extracting query parameters from an object: one using the `_.get` method from Lodash and another using native JavaScript methods.

**Test Case 1: _.get + stringify**

The first test case uses the Lodash library (`lodash@4.17.4`) to extract query parameters from an object `req.query`. The code snippet:
```javascript
var q = externalEvents.reduce((acc, curr) => {
  var queryVal = _.get(req.query, curr.origin_query_params);
  if (queryVal) {
    return { ...acc, [curr.code]: queryVal };
  }
  return acc;
}, {});
```
This code uses the `_.get` method to safely access nested properties in the `req.query` object. The resulting object is then used to create a string representation of the extracted query parameters.

**Test Case 2: native**

The second test case uses only native JavaScript methods to achieve the same result:
```javascript
Object.entries(req.query).map(([key, value]) => {
  var [event] = externalEvents.filter((e) => e.origin_query_params === key);
  if (event) {
    return `${event.code}=${value}`;
  }
  return '';
}).filter(Boolean).join('&');
```
This code uses the `Object.entries` method to iterate over the query parameters, and then filters the `externalEvents` array to find matching codes. The resulting string is created by concatenating the code and value pairs.

**Comparison**

The two approaches differ in several aspects:

* **Library usage**: One approach uses Lodash (`_.get`), while the other uses only native JavaScript methods.
* **Performance**: Native methods might be faster since they don't incur the overhead of function call and object lookup, which can occur with Lodash's `_.get`.
* **Readability**: The native approach might be more readable for some developers who prefer to avoid external libraries.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash (.get)**:
	+ Pros: Provides a convenient way to safely access nested properties, reducing the risk of errors.
	+ Cons: Requires an additional library dependency, which might add overhead in terms of size and download time.
* **Native JavaScript**:
	+ Pros: Faster performance, as it avoids external function call overhead.
	+ Cons: More verbose code, requiring explicit property access and filtering.

**Other Considerations**

If the test was modified to include other query parameters or nested objects, Lodash's `_.get` method might still be a more convenient choice. However, for this specific use case with simple query parameters, the native approach could be a better option.

As for special JS features or syntax, none are explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. If you're interested in exploring other approaches, consider the following alternatives:

* **Using a different library**: Other libraries like Moment.js (for date parsing) or Ramda (for functional programming utilities) might offer alternative solutions.
* **Using a polyfill**: Lodash's `_.get` method is not included in all browsers; using a polyfill could ensure compatibility with older browsers.

Keep in mind that benchmarking results can vary depending on the specific use case, environment, and hardware.

Related benchmarks:

test124124124124 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.get + stringify vs native

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.get + stringify

native

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):