Benchmark: lodash.get vs native JS continuous checks

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var user = {name: 'John', lastName: 'Doe', foo: { bar: "baz" } };

Tests:

lodash.get
_.get(user, 'foo.bar');
native JS
user && user.foo && user.foo.bar

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.get
native JS

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.87 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 80 on Mac OS X 10.12.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.get	2320872.5 Ops/sec
native JS	4673879.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to access nested properties of an object in JavaScript:

1. **Lodash's `_.get()` method**: This function is part of the Lodash utility library, which provides a set of functional programming helpers.
2. **Native JavaScript syntax**: This approach uses the dot notation (e.g., `user.foo.bar`) to access nested properties.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of:

* Using the `_.get()` method from Lodash
* Using native JavaScript syntax with chained property accesses (`user && user.foo && user.foo.bar`)

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash's `.get()` method:**

Pros:

* More concise and readable code
* Reduces the risk of null pointer exceptions, as it returns `undefined` if any of the intermediate properties are null or undefined

Cons:

* Adds a dependency on the Lodash library
* May introduce additional overhead due to the library's functionality (e.g., handling special cases like arrays)

**Native JavaScript syntax:**

Pros:

* No dependencies or libraries required
* Can be optimized by the JavaScript engine for performance

Cons:

* More verbose and less readable code
* May result in null pointer exceptions if any of the intermediate properties are null or undefined

**Library - Lodash's `_get()` method**

Lodash's `_.get()` method is a utility function that helps you access nested properties of an object. It takes two arguments: the object to access and an array of property keys (e.g., `['foo', 'bar']`). The function returns the value at the specified path, or `undefined` if any of the intermediate properties are null or undefined.

**Special JavaScript Feature - Null Coalescing Operator (`&&`)**

The benchmark uses the null coalescing operator (`&&`) to check if an object property exists before accessing it. This operator is a shorthand for:

```javascript
obj && obj.prop === true ? obj.prop : undefined
```

This allows you to write more concise code and avoid null pointer exceptions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you prefer not to use Lodash's `_.get()` method, you can also use other libraries or techniques to access nested properties, such as:

* Using the `in` operator (e.g., `user['foo'] && user['foo']['bar']`)
* Utilizing a recursive function to traverse the object
* Leveraging a library like jQuery's `.prop()` method

However, these alternatives may introduce additional dependencies or complexity, so it's essential to weigh the trade-offs based on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

lodash.get vs native JS continuous checks (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.get vs native JS

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.get

native JS

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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