Benchmark: _.get vs nativefeaf

HTML Preparation code:

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

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

Tests:

_.get

var object = { 'a': [{ 'b': { 'c': 3 } }] };
 
_.get(object, 'a[0].b.c');

 
var object = { 'a': [{ 'b': { 'c': 3 } }] }; _.get(object, 'a[0].b.c');

native

var object = { 'a': [{ 'b': { 'c': 3 } }] };
 

/*
const get = (obj, path, defaultValue) => {
  const result = String.prototype.split.call(path, /[,[\].]+?/)
    .filter(Boolean)
    .reduce((res, key) => (res !== null && res !== undefined) ? res[key] : res, obj);
  return (result === undefined || result === obj) ? defaultValue : result;
}
 */

 const get = (obj, item, failure) => obj.item || failure;


get(object, 'a[0].b.c');

 
var object = { 'a': [{ 'b': { 'c': 3 } }] }; ​/*const get = (obj, path, defaultValue) => {  const result = String.prototype.split.call(path, /[,[\].]+?/)    .filter(Boolean)    .reduce((res, key) => (res !== null && res !== undefined) ? res[key] : res, obj);  return (result === undefined || result === obj) ? defaultValue : result;} */​ const get = (obj, item, failure) => obj.item || failure;​​get(object, 'a[0].b.c');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
_.get
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/78.0.3904.108 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 78 on Mac OS X 10.15.2

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.get	1579572.0 Ops/sec
native	563340.6 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

Benchmark Definition and Script Preparation Code

The benchmark definition is represented by the provided JSON file, which contains two test cases:

_.get (Lodash)
native

The script preparation code for both test cases is empty, indicating that no custom initialization or setup is required.

However, the HTML preparation code includes a link to Lodash.js library version 4.17.5. This means that the first test case (_.get) will use the Lodash library, while the second test case (native) will rely on a custom implementation.

Options Compared

The benchmark compares two approaches:

Lodash's _.get method: The first test case uses Lodash's _.get method to access nested properties of an object.
Custom implementation (native): The second test case implements a custom function, get, which also accesses nested properties of an object.

Pros and Cons

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

Lodash's _.get method

Pros:

Well-tested and maintained library
Efficient implementation for simple cases

Cons:

May have slower performance due to the overhead of a function call
Can be less efficient for complex or deeply nested object access

Custom implementation (native)

Pros:

Typically faster than using a library function, as it avoids the overhead of a function call
Allows for more control over the implementation and optimizations

Cons:

Requires manual implementation and maintenance, which can lead to errors or performance issues if not done correctly
May require additional dependencies or setup

Other Considerations

When evaluating these two approaches, it's essential to consider the specific requirements of your use case. For example:

If you need to access simple, flat objects with a small number of properties, Lodash's _.get method might be sufficient.
If you're working with complex, deeply nested object graphs or require fine-grained control over the implementation, the custom get function might be a better choice.

Library: Lodash

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a collection of utility functions for various tasks, including string manipulation, array and object operations, and more. The _.get method specifically allows you to access nested properties of an object in a concise and readable way.

In this benchmark, the use of Lodash's _.get method implies that the test case requires efficient and convenient access to nested properties, which is a common pattern in JavaScript development.

Special JS Feature/Syntax

This benchmark does not require any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is typical for web development. The custom implementation (native) uses basic JavaScript constructs like functions, object access, and conditional statements, making it accessible to most developers familiar with the language.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net!

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition and Script Preparation Code**

The benchmark definition is represented by the provided JSON file, which contains two test cases:

1. `_.get` (Lodash)
2. `native`

The script preparation code for both test cases is empty, indicating that no custom initialization or setup is required.

However, the HTML preparation code includes a link to Lodash.js library version 4.17.5. This means that the first test case (`_.get`) will use the Lodash library, while the second test case (`native`) will rely on a custom implementation.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Lodash's _.get method**: The first test case uses Lodash's `_.get` method to access nested properties of an object.
2. **Custom implementation (native)**: The second test case implements a custom function, `get`, which also accesses nested properties of an object.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Lodash's _.get method**

Pros:

* Well-tested and maintained library
* Efficient implementation for simple cases

Cons:

* May have slower performance due to the overhead of a function call
* Can be less efficient for complex or deeply nested object access

**Custom implementation (native)**

Pros:

* Typically faster than using a library function, as it avoids the overhead of a function call
* Allows for more control over the implementation and optimizations

Cons:

* Requires manual implementation and maintenance, which can lead to errors or performance issues if not done correctly
* May require additional dependencies or setup

**Other Considerations**

When evaluating these two approaches, it's essential to consider the specific requirements of your use case. For example:

* If you need to access simple, flat objects with a small number of properties, Lodash's _.get method might be sufficient.
* If you're working with complex, deeply nested object graphs or require fine-grained control over the implementation, the custom `get` function might be a better choice.

**Library: Lodash**

In this benchmark, the use of Lodash's _.get method implies that the test case requires efficient and convenient access to nested properties, which is a common pattern in JavaScript development.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not require any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is typical for web development. The custom implementation (`native`) uses basic JavaScript constructs like functions, object access, and conditional statements, making it accessible to most developers familiar with the language.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net!

Related benchmarks:

_.get vs nativefeaf (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: _.get vs native

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

_.get

native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):