Benchmark: lodash.get vs optional chaining vs safeGet vs dlv

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var state = {
  wrapped1: {
    wrapped2: {
      location: {
    	search: '',
    	id: 12
      }
    }
  },
  data: {}
};

var safeGet = function(nestedObj, paths, defaultVal) {
  if (!paths || paths.length === 0) return defaultVal
  const result = paths.slice(0).reduce((obj, path, i, arr) => {
    if (!obj) {
      arr.splice(i) // break out of the loop
      return undefined
    }
    return obj[path]
  }, nestedObj)

  if (result === undefined || result === null) {
    return defaultVal
  }

  return result
}

var dlv = function(obj, key, def, p, undef) {
	key = key.split ? key.split('.') : key;
	for (p = 0; p < key.length; p++) {
		obj = obj ? obj[key[p]] : undef;
	}
	return obj === undef ? def : obj;
}

Tests:

lodash.get
var l = _.get(state, ['wrapped1','wrapped2','location','search']);
Optional chaining (babel es2015)
var _state$wrapped, _state$wrapped$wrappe, _state$wrapped$wrappe2; var s = state === null || state === void 0 ? void 0 : (_state$wrapped = state.wrapped1) === null || _state$wrapped === void 0 ? void 0 : (_state$wrapped$wrappe = _state$wrapped.wrapped2) === null || _state$wrapped$wrappe === void 0 ? void 0 : (_state$wrapped$wrappe2 = _state$wrapped$wrappe.location) === null || _state$wrapped$wrappe2 === void 0 ? void 0 : _state$wrapped$wrappe2.search;
safeGet
var l = safeGet(state, ['wrapped1','wrapped2','location','search']);
dlv (dot notation)
dlv(state, 'wrapped1.wrapped2.location.search');
dlv (array notation)
dlv(state, ['wrapped1','wrapped2','location','search']);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.get
Optional chaining (babel es2015)
safeGet
dlv (dot notation)
dlv (array notation)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.get	4446372.0 Ops/sec
Optional chaining (babel es2015)	5947105.5 Ops/sec
safeGet	3556851.8 Ops/sec
dlv (dot notation)	5101815.5 Ops/sec
dlv (array notation)	6122873.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The test compares four different approaches to access nested object properties:

1. `lodash.get`
2. Babel transpiled optional chaining operator (`?.`)
3. `safeGet` (a custom implementation)
4. `dlv` (another custom implementation using dot and array notation)

**Options compared:**

* `lodash.get`: a utility function from the Lodash library that safely accesses nested object properties.
* Optional chaining (`?.`): a syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2020 that allows safe navigation of nested objects.
* `safeGet`: a custom implementation that returns a default value if any part of the path is undefined or null.
* `dlv` (dot and array notation): two custom implementations that use either dot notation (`.`) or array notation (`[]`) to access nested object properties.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **lodash.get**:
	* Pros: well-tested, widely used library, provides a safe and convenient way to access nested object properties.
	* Cons: may have performance overhead due to its utility function nature.
2. Optional chaining (`?.`):
	* Pros: concise syntax, efficient execution, and no additional dependencies (compared to `lodash.get`).
	* Cons: may not be as flexible or customizable as other approaches.
3. **safeGet**:
	* Pros: fully customizable, can handle complex path logic, and provides a clear implementation understanding.
	* Cons: requires manual path handling, which can lead to errors if not implemented correctly.
4. `dlv` (dot and array notation):
	* Pros: simple, easy to understand, and efficient execution.
	* Cons: may have limitations in terms of flexibility and customizability.

**Library usage:**

The test uses the Lodash library for its `lodash.get` implementation.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

The test showcases optional chaining (`?.`) which is a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020. It allows safe navigation of nested objects, preventing null pointer exceptions.

Now, when it comes to alternatives, some other approaches could be considered:

1. Using the `in` operator or bracket notation (`[]`) for property access.
2. Implementing custom utility functions using a similar approach as `safeGet`.
3. Leveraging modern JavaScript features like `Object.getPrototypeOf()` and `Array.prototype.reduce()`.

However, these alternatives might not provide the same level of convenience, flexibility, or performance as the tested approaches.

Related benchmarks:

lodash.get vs optional chaining vs safeGet vs dlv (version: 0)

Compare lodash.get to babel transpiled ?. (optional chaining) operator

Comparing performance of: lodash.get vs Optional chaining (babel es2015) vs safeGet vs dlv (dot notation) vs dlv (array notation)

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.get

Optional chaining (babel es2015)

safeGet

dlv (dot notation)

dlv (array notation)

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):