Benchmark: Lodash Get vs Native

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

function nativeNonGreedyLookup() {
  const obj = { firstLevel: { secondLevel: { thirdLevel: 'test' } } };
  let thirdLevel;
  
  if ( obj && obj.firstLevel && obj.firstLevel.secondLevel && obj.firstLevel.secondLevel.thirdLevel ) {
  	thirdLevel = obj.firstLevel.secondLevel.thirdLevel;
  }
  
  return thirdLevel;
}

function lodashNonGreedyLookup() {
  const obj = { firstLevel: { secondLevel: { thirdLevel: 'test' } } };
  const thirdLevel = _.get(obj, 'firstLevel.secondLevel.thirdLevel', 'unknown');
  return thirdLevel;
}

Tests:

Native non-greedy lookup.
nativeNonGreedyLookup();
Lodash get based non-greedy lookup.
lodashNonGreedyLookup();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native non-greedy lookup.
Lodash get based non-greedy lookup.

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark JSON and discuss what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons of each approach, library usage, special JavaScript features, and other considerations.

**What is tested on the provided JSON?**

The benchmark tests two approaches for non-greedy lookup in a nested object: native implementation using `if` statements and Lodash's `_get` method. The test cases use a specific object structure to demonstrate both approaches.

**Options compared:**

* Native implementation (using `if` statements): This approach uses a straightforward, iterative way to access the desired value.
* Lodash's `_get` method: This is a utility function from the Lodash library that provides a more functional and concise way to access nested object properties.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* Native implementation:
	+ Pros:
		- Typically faster since it doesn't rely on external libraries or functions.
		- Can be easily understood by developers familiar with JavaScript's syntax.
	+ Cons:
		- More verbose and error-prone, as it requires explicit checks for object existence and property access.
* Lodash's `_get` method:
	+ Pros:
		- Concise and readable, making it easier to understand and maintain.
		- Reduces the chance of errors due to its built-in checks and fallbacks.
	+ Cons:
		- Relying on an external library may introduce performance overhead or dependency issues.
		- May not be as performant as a native implementation, especially in cases where object structure is complex.

**Library usage:**

The Lodash library is used for its `_get` method, which provides a convenient and efficient way to access nested object properties. The library is included in the benchmark using the provided HTML preparation code.

**Special JavaScript features (not mentioned):**

None explicitly mentioned, but note that this benchmark doesn't use any experimental or esoteric JavaScript features.

**Other considerations:**

* Performance: The benchmark measures execution speed per second for both approaches.
* Code readability and maintainability: Lodash's `_get` method is generally more readable and concise than the native implementation.
* Dependency on external libraries: Using an external library like Lodash introduces potential performance overhead or dependency issues, which may be a consideration in certain environments.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative non-greedy lookup methods, consider:

* Using `in` operator with `typeof` to check if the property exists and its type matches the expected value.
* Employing a recursive approach using `if` statements or a loop.
* Leveraging modern JavaScript features like optional chaining (`?.`) and nullish coalescing (`??`) for more concise expressions.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not offer the same performance as the native implementation or Lodash's `_get` method.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/73.0.3683.103 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 73 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native non-greedy lookup.	7277620.5 Ops/sec
Lodash get based non-greedy lookup.	961744.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash Get vs Native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native non-greedy lookup. vs Lodash get based non-greedy lookup.

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Native non-greedy lookup.

Lodash get based non-greedy lookup.

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):