Benchmark: Lodash.get vs Property dot notation with sanity check pass & fail

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Lodash get pass
_.get(obj, 'a.b.c.d');
Native pass
((((obj || {}).a || {}).b || {}).c || {}).d
Lodash get fail
_.get(obj, 'a.b.c.e');
Native fail
((((obj || {}).a || {}).b || {}).c || {}).e

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash get pass
Native pass
Lodash get fail
Native fail

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining the benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case hosted on MeasureThat.net. The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of using Lodash's `_.get()` function versus traditional property dot notation with sanity checks for accessing nested object properties.

**Options Compared**

Two approaches are compared:

1. **Lodash `.get()`**: This approach uses Lodash's `_.get()` function, which allows you to safely access nested properties in objects.
2. **Native Property Dot Notation with Sanity Checks**: This approach uses traditional property dot notation (e.g., `obj.a.b.c.d`) with sanity checks (`||` and `||{}`) to avoid null pointer exceptions.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash `.get()`**

Pros:

* Provides a safe way to access nested properties without worrying about null pointers.
* Reduces the chance of runtime errors due to incorrect property paths.

Cons:

* Introduces additional overhead due to the function call and potential caching issues with Lodash's minified library.

**Native Property Dot Notation with Sanity Checks**

Pros:

* Lightweight and simple, making it a good choice for small code snippets.
* Does not introduce additional overhead compared to traditional dot notation.

Cons:

* Requires careful handling of null pointers to avoid runtime errors.
* May lead to slower performance due to the repeated checks (`||`).

**Sanity Checks and Null Pointers**

Both approaches include sanity checks to handle cases where a property path is invalid. Lodash's `_.get()` function will return undefined if the target object or any intermediate properties do not exist, whereas traditional dot notation with sanity checks will propagate null values up the call stack.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a set of utility functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array and object manipulation, and more. In this benchmark, Lodash's `_.get()` function is used to safely access nested properties in objects.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax, but it relies on the nuances of property access in JavaScript (e.g., using dot notation with sanity checks).

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches that could be considered for this benchmark include:

* Using a more modern approach like `obj?.a?.b?.c?.d`
* Leveraging other libraries or frameworks that provide similar functionality to Lodash's `_.get()` function
* Focusing on optimizing the underlying code rather than comparing different access patterns

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be directly comparable to this specific benchmark, and their performance would depend on various factors such as implementation details, optimization techniques, and target use cases.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/74.0.3729.169 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 74 on Mac OS X 10.14.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash get pass	1917642.6 Ops/sec
Native pass	11511233.0 Ops/sec
Lodash get fail	1805968.5 Ops/sec
Native fail	11822852.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.get vs Property dot notation with sanity check pass & fail (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash get pass vs Native pass vs Lodash get fail vs Native fail

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash get pass

Native pass

Lodash get fail

Native fail

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):