Benchmark: _.get vs nativefeaf

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

_.get
var object = { 'a': [{ 'b': { 'c': 3 } }] }; _.get(object, 'a[0].b.c');
native
var object = { 'a': [{ 'b': { 'c': 3 } }] }; /* const get = (obj, path, defaultValue) => { const result = String.prototype.split.call(path, /[,[\].]+?/) .filter(Boolean) .reduce((res, key) => (res !== null && res !== undefined) ? res[key] : res, obj); return (result === undefined || result === obj) ? defaultValue : result; } */ const get = (obj, item, failure) => obj.item || failure; get(object, 'a[0].b.c');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.get
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition and Script Preparation Code**

The benchmark definition is represented by the provided JSON file, which contains two test cases:

1. `_.get` (Lodash)
2. `native`

The script preparation code for both test cases is empty, indicating that no custom initialization or setup is required.

However, the HTML preparation code includes a link to Lodash.js library version 4.17.5. This means that the first test case (`_.get`) will use the Lodash library, while the second test case (`native`) will rely on a custom implementation.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Lodash's _.get method**: The first test case uses Lodash's `_.get` method to access nested properties of an object.
2. **Custom implementation (native)**: The second test case implements a custom function, `get`, which also accesses nested properties of an object.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Lodash's _.get method**

Pros:

* Well-tested and maintained library
* Efficient implementation for simple cases

Cons:

* May have slower performance due to the overhead of a function call
* Can be less efficient for complex or deeply nested object access

**Custom implementation (native)**

Pros:

* Typically faster than using a library function, as it avoids the overhead of a function call
* Allows for more control over the implementation and optimizations

Cons:

* Requires manual implementation and maintenance, which can lead to errors or performance issues if not done correctly
* May require additional dependencies or setup

**Other Considerations**

When evaluating these two approaches, it's essential to consider the specific requirements of your use case. For example:

* If you need to access simple, flat objects with a small number of properties, Lodash's _.get method might be sufficient.
* If you're working with complex, deeply nested object graphs or require fine-grained control over the implementation, the custom `get` function might be a better choice.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a collection of utility functions for various tasks, including string manipulation, array and object operations, and more. The _.get method specifically allows you to access nested properties of an object in a concise and readable way.

In this benchmark, the use of Lodash's _.get method implies that the test case requires efficient and convenient access to nested properties, which is a common pattern in JavaScript development.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not require any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is typical for web development. The custom implementation (`native`) uses basic JavaScript constructs like functions, object access, and conditional statements, making it accessible to most developers familiar with the language.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/78.0.3904.108 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 78 on Mac OS X 10.15.2

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.get	1579572.0 Ops/sec
native	563340.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

_.get vs nativefeaf (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: _.get vs native

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

_.get

native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):