Benchmark: Get object value by path vs lodash get

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

Object.byString = function(o, s) {
    s = s.replace(/\[(\w+)\]/g, '.$1'); // convert indexes to properties
    s = s.replace(/^\./, ''); // strip a leading dot
    var a = s.split('.');
    for (var i = 0, n = a.length; i < n; ++i) {
        var k = a[i];
        if (k in o) {
            o = o[k];
        } else {
            return;
        }
    }
    return o;
}

Tests:

Case 1
Object.byString({ a: 1 }, 'a');
lodash
_.get({a: 1}, "a")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Case 1
lodash

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'll explain the provided JSON benchmark definition and its options.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches to retrieve an object value by path: `Object.byString` (custom implementation) and `lodash.get`.

**Options Compared**

1. **Custom Implementation (`Object.byString`)**:
	* This approach uses a custom function to split the property path into individual keys, iterate over them, and recursively access the corresponding values in the object.
	* Pros: Provides fine-grained control over the implementation and can be optimized for specific use cases.
	* Cons: Requires manual maintenance of the codebase, and performance may degrade if not implemented correctly.
2. **Lodash `get` function**:
	* This approach uses the Lodash library to perform the same operation as the custom implementation.
	* Pros: Leverages existing optimization and caching mechanisms in the Lodash library, reducing the need for manual maintenance.
	* Cons: Introduces an additional dependency on the Lodash library, which may increase bundle size and download time.

**Other Considerations**

* **Language Features**: There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. However, it's essential to note that some JavaScript engines might optimize certain operations differently.
* **Library Usage**: The `lodash` library is used in the second test case (`_.get` function). Lodash is a popular utility library for functional programming and data manipulation.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following:

1. Using the built-in `in` operator with bracket notation: `o[k]`
2. Implementing a recursive function without using `Object.byString`: e.g., `function get(o, k) { if (k in o) return o[k]; else if (typeof o === 'object') return Object.keys(o).map(k => get(o[k], k)).find(v => v !== undefined); }`
3. Using a library like `fast-leveldb` or `lodash.cache` to optimize object lookups.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the custom implementation and Lodash `get` function.

Related benchmarks:

Get object value by path vs lodash get (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Case 1 vs lodash

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Case 1

lodash

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):