Benchmark: hasVshasOwnProperty

HTML Preparation code:

<script>https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.core.js</script>

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {
    a:{
        b:{
            c:{
                d:{
                    e: 20
                }
            }
        }
    }
};

Tests:

Lodash
_.has(obj, 'a.b.c.d.e');
Javascript Object
obj.a.b.c.d.hasOwnProperty('e')
Plain Javascript
!!((((obj.a || ob).b || ob).c || ob).d).e;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Javascript Object
Plain Javascript

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the benchmark being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests three different approaches for checking if an object has a specific property with a value:

1. **Lodash**: Using the `_.has()` function from the Lodash library, which checks if an object has a specific property.
2. **JavaScript Object**: Using the `in` operator to check if an object has a specific property, and then using the `.hasOwnProperty()` method to verify that the property is not inherited from a prototype.
3. **Plain JavaScript**: Using a simple expression with the dot notation (`obj.a.b.c.d.e`) to access the nested properties of the object.

**Options compared**

The three approaches are compared in terms of their performance, measured by the number of executions per second on a specific device (Chrome 85 on a Mac OS X 10.15.5 desktop).

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Lodash**:
	* Pros: Easy to use, concise code, fast performance.
	* Cons: Adds extra library dependency, may not be suitable for all environments.
2. **JavaScript Object**:
	* Pros: Native implementation, no dependencies required.
	* Cons: More verbose code, potential performance overhead due to the `in` operator and `hasOwnProperty()` method.
3. **Plain JavaScript**:
	* Pros: Fastest performance, native implementation.
	* Cons: Requires more manual effort to implement nested property access.

**Library usage**

The benchmark uses the Lodash library, which is a popular utility library for functional programming in JavaScript. The `_.has()` function is used to check if an object has a specific property.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None of the approaches use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would be unfamiliar to most software engineers. However, it's worth noting that the `in` operator and `hasOwnProperty()` method are part of the ECMAScript standard, so they may not require additional dependencies or setup.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* Using a more advanced library like jQuery or Ramda, which offer more features for working with objects.
* Implementing custom logic using bitwise operations or other techniques to access nested properties quickly.
* Using a different approach, such as using an index-based lookup table or caching the results of previous accesses.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs, and the choice ultimately depends on the specific requirements of your use case.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/85.0.4183.102 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 85 on Mac OS X 10.15.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash	2154678.8 Ops/sec
Javascript Object	13637568.0 Ops/sec
Plain Javascript	15890761.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

hasVshasOwnProperty (version: 0)

performance comparison

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Javascript Object vs Plain Javascript

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Javascript Object

Plain Javascript

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):