Benchmark: lodash performance v2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var testObj = {
    job: {
        employee: {
            fullName: 'arthur'
        }
    }
};

Tests:

lodash string path
_.get(testObj, 'job.employee.fullName');
lodash array path
_.get(testObj, ['job', 'employee', 'fullName']);
native
testObj.job.employee.fullName
native with ES9
testObj?.job?.employee?.fullName

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash string path
lodash array path
native
native with ES9

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.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript performance benchmarking.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark for measuring the performance of Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library, in executing different types of paths and accessing nested properties.

The test cases are designed to compare the execution times of:

1. **Lodash array path**: Using the `_.get` method with an array notation (`_.get(testObj, ['job', 'employee', 'fullName'])`).
2. **Lodash string path**: Using the `_.get` method with a string notation (`_.get(testObj, 'job.employee.fullName')`).
3. **Native**: Directly accessing the property using the dot notation (`testObj.job.employee.fullName`).
4. **Native with ES9**: Using optional chaining (the `.?.` syntax) to access the nested properties (`testObj?.job?.employee?.fullName`).

**Options being compared**

The benchmark is comparing four different approaches to access and manipulate data in JavaScript:

1. Lodash's `_.get` method, which provides a convenient way to traverse nested objects using both array and string notations.
2. Native JavaScript syntax, which uses the dot notation for direct property access.
3. Optional chaining (ES9), which allows for more expressive and flexible way of accessing nested properties.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Lodash's `_.get` method**: Pros:
	* Convenient and readable syntax for traversing nested objects.
	* Provides a consistent API for handling different types of paths.
	* Can be useful when working with complex data structures.
2. **Native JavaScript syntax** (dot notation):
	* Pros:
		+ Fastest and most efficient way to access properties.
		+ No additional library or dependency required.
		+ Easy to understand and use for simple cases.
3. **Optional chaining (ES9)**:
	* Pros:
		+ More expressive and flexible way of accessing nested properties.
		+ Reduces the need for explicit null checks.
		+ Improves code readability.

**Libraries used**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used as the utility library for providing the `_.get` method. The `lodash.min.js` file is included via a script tag in the HTML preparation code.

**Special JS features or syntax**

The benchmark uses optional chaining (the `.?.` syntax) introduced in ES9, which allows for more expressive and flexible way of accessing nested properties. This feature is not available in older JavaScript versions.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to access and manipulate data in JavaScript, consider the following options:

1. **Object destructuring**: Similar to the dot notation, but uses destructuring syntax (`{ job: { employee: { fullName } } }`) to extract properties.
2. **Array methods**: For traversing arrays or objects with array-like behavior (e.g., `Array.prototype.map`, `Array.prototype.filter`).
3. **Function composition**: Using functions like `_.map`, `_.filter`, or `_.reduce` to process data in a more functional programming style.

These alternatives can be useful depending on the specific problem you're trying to solve and your personal coding preferences.

Related benchmarks:

lodash performance v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash string path vs lodash array path vs native vs native with ES9

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash string path

lodash array path

native

native with ES9

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):