Benchmark: Lodash.get vs &&

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var person = {some: {nested: {field: [{that: {i: {want: {to: {get: ['value']}}}}}]}}, name: 'Frederick', lastName: 'Corcino Alejo'};

Tests:

Lodash get
_.get(person, 'some.nested.field[0].that.i.want.to.get[0]');
Native
person && person.some && person.some.nested && person.some.nested.field && person.some.nested.field[0] && person.some.nested.field[0].that && person.some.nested.field[0].that.i && person.some.nested.field[0].that.i.want && person.some.nested.field[0].that.i.want.to && person.some.nested.field[0].that.i.want.to.get && person.some.nested.field[0].that.i.want.to.get[0]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash 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 break down the provided JSON to understand what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to access nested properties of an object: using the `_.get` function from Lodash and the logical AND operator (`&&`). The goal is to determine which approach is faster for accessing deeply nested objects.

**Options Compared**

1. **Lodash.get**: This function is part of the Lodash utility library, which provides a set of helper functions for various tasks, including data manipulation. `_.get` allows you to access nested properties of an object using a dot notation, similar to how we would write it in JavaScript.
2. **Native (&&)**: This approach uses the logical AND operator (`&&`) to chain together multiple property accesses. The idea is that the browser's engine will optimize this expression, making it faster than using Lodash's `_.get`.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash.get**

Pros:

* Easier to read and maintain, as it follows a more explicit syntax.
* Less error-prone, as Lodash handles the nesting logic for you.

Cons:

* Adds an external dependency (the Lodash library), which might incur additional overhead.
* Might be slower due to the overhead of calling another function.

**Native (&&)**

Pros:

* No external dependencies or overhead.
* Might be faster due to the optimization by the browser's engine.

Cons:

* Can be harder to read and maintain, especially for complex expressions.
* Requires careful chaining of property accesses to avoid errors.

**Library**

The Lodash library is a popular utility library that provides various helper functions for tasks like data manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this case, `_.get` is used to simplify accessing nested properties of an object.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. The test cases only involve standard JavaScript expressions using dot notation.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to compare other approaches to accessing deeply nested objects, some alternatives could be:

* Using bracket notation (`person['some.nested.field[0].that.i.want.to.get']`) instead of dot notation.
* Using the `in` operator or `hasOwnProperty()` method to check for property existence before accessing it.
* Using a recursive function to access nested properties.

However, these alternatives are not being tested in this specific benchmark.

**Benchmark Preparation**

The benchmark preparation code sets up an object `person` with nested properties and assigns it to a variable. The HTML preparation code includes the Lodash library as a script tag, which is used by the first test case (`Lodash.get`). The second test case (`Native`) does not require any external libraries.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show that the `Lodash.get` approach is faster than the `Native (&&)` approach. This suggests that using an external library like Lodash can provide a performance boost for accessing deeply nested objects in JavaScript.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/81.0.4044.113 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 81 on Mac OS X 10.14.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash get	1870168.6 Ops/sec
Native	1165719.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.get vs && (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash get vs Native

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash 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):