Benchmark: Lodash.get vs safeGet vs Native

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var person = {name: 'Frederick', lastName: 'Corcino Alejo', nested: {name: 'test'}};
function safeGet(obj, path, defaultValue) {
  return path.split('.').reduce((xs, x) => (xs && xs[x]) ? xs[x] : defaultValue, obj);
}

Tests:

Lodash get
_.get(person, 'name', ''); _.get(person, 'nested.name', '');
safeGet
safeGet(person, 'name', ''); safeGet(person, 'nested.name', '');
Native
person.name; person.nested.name;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash get
safeGet
Native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Purpose:**

The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of three approaches:

1. `Lodash.get`: A function from the popular Lodash library that allows safe and efficient access to nested object properties.
2. `safeGet`: A custom implementation of a safe getter function, which also accesses nested object properties.
3. Native code: Directly accessing object properties using the dot notation (`person.name`).

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches:

* `Lodash.get`
* `safeGet`
* Native code

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Lodash.get**: Pros:
	* High-level abstraction, making it easier to write code that accesses nested properties.
	* Provides a safe way to avoid " Property X does not exist" errors.
Cons:
	* Adds overhead due to the need to import and initialize the Lodash library.
2. **safeGet**: Pros:
	+ Lightweight implementation with minimal overhead.
Cons:
	+ Requires manual error handling for cases where the property path is invalid or non-existent.
3. **Native code**: Pros:
	+ No additional overhead from libraries or function calls.
Cons:
	+ Error-prone, as it can lead to "Property X does not exist" errors if the property name is incorrect.

**Library:**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used to provide a safe and efficient way to access nested object properties. The `Lodash.get` function is specifically designed for this purpose and provides a convenient abstraction over accessing nested properties.

**JavaScript Features/Syntax:**

This benchmark uses JavaScript's dot notation (`person.name`) to access object properties directly in the native code test case. This syntax is widely supported in modern browsers and environments.

**Other Considerations:**

* Performance: The benchmark focuses on measuring execution speed, but other factors like memory usage or garbage collection might be relevant depending on the specific use case.
* Error handling: The `safeGet` implementation requires manual error handling, while `Lodash.get` provides a safe way to avoid errors. Native code relies on JavaScript's built-in error handling mechanisms.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives to consider when accessing nested object properties include:

1. **Using bracket notation (`person['name']`) instead of dot notation**: This can provide better performance in some cases, as it avoids the overhead of function calls and property lookups.
2. **Using a library like `Object.getPrototypeOf()` or `JSON.parse()`**: These functions can be used to access nested properties in different ways, but might not offer the same convenience as Lodash's `get` method.
3. **Implementing custom getters and setters for objects**: This approach provides more fine-grained control over property access, but requires additional boilerplate code.

In summary, this benchmark provides a useful comparison of three approaches to accessing nested object properties in JavaScript, highlighting the trade-offs between convenience, safety, and performance.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash get	1336056.1 Ops/sec
safeGet	2111315.5 Ops/sec
Native	6525259.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.get vs safeGet vs Native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash get vs safeGet vs Native

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash get

safeGet

Native

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):