Benchmark: lodash get vs lodash head

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = [{id: 1}, {id: 2}, {id: 3}]

var usingGet = _.get(data, "0.id")
var usingHead = _.head(data).id

console.log("using get: ", usingGet)
console.log("using head: ", usingHead)

Tests:

using get
_.get(data, "0.id")
using head
_.head(data).id

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
using get
using head

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two different approaches to accessing an element in an array using the `lodash` library:

1. **`_.get(data, '0.id')`**: This approach uses the `_get()` method from the `lodash` library to access the value at a specific path in the array. In this case, the path is `"0.id"`, which means "the value of the element at index 0 in the object with key `id"`.

2. **`.head(data).id`**: This approach uses the `_.head()` method from the `lodash` library to access the first element of the array and then accesses its `id` property directly.

**Options comparison**

Both approaches are using the same `lodash` library, but they differ in how they access the desired value:

* **`.get(data, '0.id')`**: This approach is more explicit about the path it's taking to access the value. It's also more flexible, as you can pass any valid path as a string.
* **`.head(data).id`**: This approach is more concise and assumes that the first element of the array is always the one with the desired `id` property.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **`.get(data, '0.id')`**:
	+ Pros: More explicit and flexible, easier to read and understand.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the extra overhead of parsing the path string.
* **`.head(data).id`**:
	+ Pros: Concise and efficient, can be faster than using `_get()`.
	+ Cons: Less readable and maintainable, assumes that the first element is always the correct one.

**Library**

The `lodash` library is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this case, it's being used to provide the `_get()` and `_head()` methods that are being compared in the benchmark.

**Other considerations**

* **Array indexing**: Both approaches assume that arrays are 0-indexed, meaning that the first element is at index 0.
* **Object property access**: The `_.get()` method uses a similar syntax to accessing object properties directly. However, it's more flexible and allows for more complex paths.

**Alternatives**

There are other ways to access elements in an array or objects in JavaScript:

* **Using bracket notation**: `data[0].id` (no library needed)
* **Using the `in` operator**: `for (var key in data[0]) { if (key === 'id') { console.log(data[0][key]); } }` (no library needed)
* **Using the `map()` method**: `data.map(item => item.id)` (uses the `Array.prototype.map()` method, which is part of the standard JavaScript API)

However, these alternatives are not as concise or efficient as using `_get()` and `.head()`, especially for more complex paths or arrays with many elements.

Related benchmarks:

lodash get vs lodash head (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: using get vs using head

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

using get

using head

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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