Benchmark: Lodash.get vs Property dot notation (Nested)

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var nested = {nested: {nested: {nested: 'ab'}}};

Tests:

Lodash get
_.get(nested, 'nested.nested.nested');
Native
(nested && nested.nested && nested.nested.nested && nested.nested.nested.nested) || ''

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

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.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches for accessing nested properties in JavaScript objects: Lodash's `get()` function and native property access using the dot notation (also known as "dot notation" or "property chaining").

**Lodash's get() Function**

The Lodash library is a utility belt that provides various functions for tasks like array manipulation, object creation, and more. In this benchmark, `get()` is used to safely navigate an object's nested properties.

Here's what the test case does:
```javascript
_.get(nested, 'nested.nested.nested'); // returns 'ab'
```
This code uses Lodash's `get()` function to access the innermost property of the `nested` object. If any of the intermediate properties are missing or null, `get()` will return an empty value instead of throwing an error.

**Native Property Access (Dot Notation)**

The second approach is using native property access with dot notation:
```javascript
(nested && nested.nested && nested.nested.nested && nested.nested.nested.nested) || '';
```
This code checks if each nested object exists before trying to access the next level of nesting. If any step fails, it returns an empty string.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash's `get()` Function:**

Pros:

* Provides a safe way to navigate nested objects, avoiding errors when properties are missing or null.
* Encourages explicit and readable code.

Cons:

* Introduces additional overhead due to the function call and potential checks for non-existent properties.
* May slow down performance compared to native property access.

**Native Property Access (Dot Notation):**

Pros:

* Faster execution since it avoids the overhead of a function call and explicit checks.
* Can be more efficient for simple, fixed-length nesting patterns.

Cons:

* Requires manual error handling for cases where intermediate properties are missing or null.
* May lead to less readable code if not done carefully.

**Other Considerations**

In general, Lodash's `get()` function is a good choice when:

* You need to handle nested objects with potential errors (e.g., accessing data from a third-party API).
* Readability and explicitness are more important than performance.
* You're working with complex or dynamic data structures.

For simple, fixed-length nesting patterns where you're sure that intermediate properties exist, native property access with dot notation might be faster and more efficient.

**Other Alternatives**

Other alternatives for accessing nested properties in JavaScript include:

1. Brackets (`[]`) instead of dot notation: `nested['nested.nested.nested']`.
2. Using the `in` operator to check if a property exists before trying to access it.
3. Utilizing libraries like underscore.js or other utility belts that provide similar functions to Lodash's `get()`.

However, for this specific benchmark, the main options being compared are Lodash's `get()` function and native property access with dot notation.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.get vs Property dot notation (Nested) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash get vs Native

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Lodash get

Native

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):