Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Teste perfm if
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
lodash vs ownprop vs chain
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var resultado = { data: { statusProcessamento: { message: "hello:" } } }
Tests:
lodash
if(_.has(resultado, "data.statusProcessamento.message")) { return resultado; }
ownprop
if(resultado.hasOwnProperty("data.statusProcessamento.message")) { return resultado; }
chain
if(resultado && resultado.data && resultado.data.statusProcessamento && resultado.data.statusProcessamento.message) { return resultado; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
lodash
ownprop
chain
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):
I'll break down the provided JSON for you. **Benchmark Definition** The `benchmark definition` represents a test case that compares different approaches to check if a specific value exists in an object. The main differences between these approaches are: 1. **Lodash (`_.has()` or `_.property()`):** This method uses the underscore library, which provides utility functions for JavaScript. * **Pros:** Widely used and well-maintained; provides additional functionality beyond basic existence checks (e.g., `_.get()`, `_.isString()`). * **Cons:** Adds an external dependency (the Lodash library), which can increase bundle size and complexity. May not be suitable for small projects or those with strict dependencies. 2. **Own Property (`hasOwnProperty()`):** This method checks if the object has a specific property using the `hasOwnProperty()` function, which is part of the JavaScript standard library. * **Pros:** No additional dependencies required; straightforward and easy to understand. * *Cons:* Uses a more outdated approach (pre-ES6); might not be as efficient or reliable for modern use cases. 3. **Chain (`&&` chaining):** This method checks multiple nested properties using the logical AND operator (`&&`), which is part of the JavaScript standard library. * **Pros:** Lightweight and easy to understand; no additional dependencies required. * *Cons:* Requires a specific structure for the object (e.g., `data.statusProcessamento.message`); might not be as readable or maintainable. **Library:** The Lodash library is used in one of the benchmark definitions (`_.has()`). It provides utility functions for JavaScript, including existence checks like `_.has()`, which can simplify code and improve readability. **Special JS feature or syntax:** There are no special features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The test cases only rely on basic JavaScript operations and standard library functions (like `hasOwnProperty()`). **Other alternatives:** Some alternative approaches to existence checks include: * **Using the `in` operator:** This can be used as an alternative to `hasOwnProperty()`. However, it has different behavior than `hasOwnProperty()` when checking for own enumerable properties. (e.g., `"name" in obj === true`, but `"obj.name" in obj === true`). * **Using `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call()`:** This method is a more modern and efficient way to check if an object has a specific property, using the `hasOwnProperty()` function from the prototype chain. * **Using a library like `deep-equal` or `deep-equals`:** These libraries provide functions for deep equality checks, which can be useful in certain situations. Overall, this benchmark is designed to compare different approaches to existence checks, highlighting the trade-offs between using external libraries (like Lodash), standard JavaScript operations, and more specialized solutions.
Related benchmarks:
xxxxxxx
Javascript if condition < 0
Teste performance
TestJoas012
js timestamp cost
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?