Benchmark: Get Fs - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var fs = {
	f1: {
      A: ["id1", "id2"],
    B: ["id1", "id2"],
    C: ["id1", "id2"],
    D: ["id1", "id2"],
    E: ["id1", "id2"],
    F: ["id1", "id2"],
    },
  f2: {
      A: ["id1", "id2"],
    B: ["id1", "id2"],
    C: ["id1", "id2"],
    D: ["id1", "id2"],
    E: ["id1", "id2"],
    F: ["id1", "id2"],
    },
  f3: {
      A: ["id1", "id2"],
    B: ["id1", "id2"],
    C: ["id1", "id2"],
    D: ["id1", "id2"],
    E: ["id1", "id2"],
    F: ["id1", "id2"],
    },
  f4: {
      A: ["id1", "id2"],
    B: ["id1", "id2"],
    C: ["id1", "id2"],
    D: ["id1", "id2"],
    E: ["id1", "id2"],
    F: ["id1", "id2"],
    },
  f5: {
      A: ["id1", "id2"],
    B: ["id1", "id2"],
    C: ["id1", "id2"],
    D: ["id1", "id2"],
    E: ["id1", "id2"],
    F: ["id1", "id2"],
    },
  f6: {
      A: ["id1", "id2"],
    B: ["id1", "id2"],
    C: ["id1", "id2"],
    D: ["id1", "id2"],
    E: ["id1", "id2"],
    F: ["id1", "id2"],
    },
  f7: {
      A: ["id1", "id2"],
    B: ["id1", "id2"],
    C: ["id1", "id2"],
    D: ["id1", "id2"],
    E: ["id1", "id2"],
    F: ["id1", "id2"],
    }
}

Tests:

Hybrid
const e = (f, i, d) => { const c = _.get(fs, [f, i]); return c?.includes(d); }; e("f7", "F", "id2")
Lodash
const e = (f, i, d) => { const c = _.get(fs, [f, i]); return _.includes(c, d); }; e("f7", "F", "id2")
Native JS
const e = (f, i, d) => { const gf = fs[f]; const gfc = gf ? gf[i] : []; const fd = gfc?.includes(d); return fd || false; }; e("f7", "F", "id2")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Hybrid
Lodash
Native JS

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:79.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/79.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 79 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Hybrid	17057582.0 Ops/sec
Lodash	5247213.0 Ops/sec
Native JS	73883312.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on the website MeasureThat.net. The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of three different approaches: Hybrid (using Lodash), Lodash, and Native JS.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code provides an object `fs` with multiple nested objects (`f1`, `f2`, ..., `f7`) containing arrays of strings (`A`, `B`, ..., `F`). This object is used to create a hierarchical data structure for testing.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a link to Lodash.js, which will be used in the test cases.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **Hybrid**
	* Benchmark Definition: Uses Lodash's `get` function to access the nested object and checks if a specific value (`d`) is included in the array.
	* Notes: This approach uses Lodash's functionality to navigate the hierarchical data structure, making it easier to write and maintain.
2. **Lodash**
	* Benchmark Definition: Uses Lodash's `includes` function to check if a specific value (`d`) is included in the array.
	* Notes: This approach relies solely on Lodash's `includes` function, which may not be as efficient as the Hybrid approach.
3. **Native JS**
	* Benchmark Definition: Uses native JavaScript to access the nested object and checks if a specific value (`d`) is included in the array.
	* Notes: This approach requires more manual code and may be less readable than the other two approaches.

**Comparison**

The test cases compare the performance of these three approaches on different hardware configurations (Firefox 79 on Mac OS X 10.15). The results show that:

* Native JS is the fastest
* Hybrid is slower but still performs well, likely due to Lodash's optimized implementation
* Lodash is the slowest

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Native JS**
	* Pros: Can be more efficient and optimal for specific use cases.
	* Cons: Requires more manual code and may be less readable.
2. **Hybrid (Lodash)**
	* Pros: Uses optimized Lodash implementation, making it faster than Native JS.
	* Cons: Relies on an external library, which may not be available or compatible with all environments.
3. **Lodash**
	* Pros: Can simplify code and reduce manual error-prone logic.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of using a separate library.

**Best Practices**

Based on these test results, it's recommended to use Native JS when:

* Performance is critical
* The data structure is simple and easy to access

Use Hybrid (Lodash) when:

* Readability and maintainability are more important than raw performance
* You want to leverage optimized Lodash implementation

Avoid using Lodash if:

* You're working with complex or large datasets that may benefit from Native JS's optimization.

Keep in mind that this is just a specific benchmark, and the best approach depends on the specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Get Fs (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Hybrid vs Lodash vs Native JS

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Hybrid

Lodash

Native JS

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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