Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
test124124124124
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
_.get + stringify vs native
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script> <script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/query-string/7.0.1/index.js" integrity="sha512-hs6211OQsgsotrLyrc+5nIuc0Ht/6ioUpBRzTe+g1xFjYkAo5AYJKNQl6eD5WZt2Lv6HHEEg0aYYqTuFF34ALg==" crossorigin="anonymous" referrerpolicy="no-referrer"></script>
Script Preparation code:
var req = { query: { click_key: 'click_key_value', run_key: 'run_key_value', }, }; var externalEvents = [ { origin_query_params: 'click_key', code: 'cookie-oven', }, { origin_query_params: 'run_key', code: 'cookie-run_key', }, { origin_query_params: 'invalid_key', code: 'invalid_value', }, ];
Tests:
_.get + stringify
var q = externalEvents.reduce((acc, curr) => { var queryVal = _.get(req.query, curr.origin_query_params); if (queryVal) { return { ...acc, [curr.code]: queryVal }; } return acc; }, {});
native
Object.entries(req.query).map(([key, value]) => { var [event] = externalEvents.filter((e) => e.origin_query_params === key) if (event) { return `${event.code}=${value}` } return '' // return `${key}=${value}` }).filter(Boolean).join('&');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
_.get + stringify
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):
I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in this benchmark and the different approaches used. **Overview** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case on MeasureThat.net. The test aims to compare two approaches for extracting query parameters from an object: one using the `_.get` method from Lodash and another using native JavaScript methods. **Test Case 1: _.get + stringify** The first test case uses the Lodash library (`lodash@4.17.4`) to extract query parameters from an object `req.query`. The code snippet: ```javascript var q = externalEvents.reduce((acc, curr) => { var queryVal = _.get(req.query, curr.origin_query_params); if (queryVal) { return { ...acc, [curr.code]: queryVal }; } return acc; }, {}); ``` This code uses the `_.get` method to safely access nested properties in the `req.query` object. The resulting object is then used to create a string representation of the extracted query parameters. **Test Case 2: native** The second test case uses only native JavaScript methods to achieve the same result: ```javascript Object.entries(req.query).map(([key, value]) => { var [event] = externalEvents.filter((e) => e.origin_query_params === key); if (event) { return `${event.code}=${value}`; } return ''; }).filter(Boolean).join('&'); ``` This code uses the `Object.entries` method to iterate over the query parameters, and then filters the `externalEvents` array to find matching codes. The resulting string is created by concatenating the code and value pairs. **Comparison** The two approaches differ in several aspects: * **Library usage**: One approach uses Lodash (`_.get`), while the other uses only native JavaScript methods. * **Performance**: Native methods might be faster since they don't incur the overhead of function call and object lookup, which can occur with Lodash's `_.get`. * **Readability**: The native approach might be more readable for some developers who prefer to avoid external libraries. **Pros and Cons** * **Lodash (.get)**: + Pros: Provides a convenient way to safely access nested properties, reducing the risk of errors. + Cons: Requires an additional library dependency, which might add overhead in terms of size and download time. * **Native JavaScript**: + Pros: Faster performance, as it avoids external function call overhead. + Cons: More verbose code, requiring explicit property access and filtering. **Other Considerations** If the test was modified to include other query parameters or nested objects, Lodash's `_.get` method might still be a more convenient choice. However, for this specific use case with simple query parameters, the native approach could be a better option. As for special JS features or syntax, none are explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. If you're interested in exploring other approaches, consider the following alternatives: * **Using a different library**: Other libraries like Moment.js (for date parsing) or Ramda (for functional programming utilities) might offer alternative solutions. * **Using a polyfill**: Lodash's `_.get` method is not included in all browsers; using a polyfill could ensure compatibility with older browsers. Keep in mind that benchmarking results can vary depending on the specific use case, environment, and hardware.
Related benchmarks:
Benchmark b62c8ffd-0b9f-4f90-a558-4539bdf7335c
Ga cookie grabber . 2
Lodash.get vs native 2022
lodash-uuid vs crypto.randomUUID
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?