Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
div compare
(version: 0)
div
Comparing performance of:
loadash vs normal
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
var ob = { "schema": { "type": "record", "name": "ParticipantCallEvent", "namespace": "com.expedia.cpce.conversation.model.v2" }, "values": { "type": "PARTICIPANT_CALL_BRIDGED", "partnerId": "33bea4ef-93c2-4166-b297-2b5e07b35235", "conversationId": "d6f4712e-99c6-4c57-8381-2a8238533a87", "participantId": "6aa2bf61-e911-4cef-bfbc-0d482af915cd", "userId": null, "userGuid": null, "userResourceUri": null, "emailAddress": "AgentVATest9@cpce.int.com", "username": "AgentVATest9", "author": null, "attributes": { "channelType": "voice", "originalRequestAttributes": "{\"participantType\":\"HumanAgent\",\"userName\":\"AgentVATest9\",\"firstName\":\"AgentVA\",\"lastName\":\"Test9\",\"preferredName\":\"AgentVA Test9\",\"monitorMode\":\"NONE\",\"role\":\"b05c62b7-8b71-4d8d-85e3-6044234b6188\",\"ccvPartnerId\":\"438110ce-95b5-4561-9a78-f67597fad5f7\",\"isSupervisor\":false,\"avatarUrl\":\"https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/csp.assets/icons/Expedia_Agent_Avatar.svg\"}", "recipients": "[{\"participantId\":\"6aa2bf61-e911-4cef-bfbc-0d482af915cd\",\"type\":\"agent\",\"username\":\"AgentVATest9\",\"isRemoved\":false,\"isParticipantRemovedByColdTransfer\":false,\"isWarmTransfer\":false,\"isCallPatchingToBeBlocked\":false,\"isAgentLandedFromOutboundCallRoute\":false}]", "channelId": "twilio" }, "headers": { "Trace-ID": "91372cc3-b40e-4bcf-b938-6a4c846ec8d8", "Message-ID": "1b0faf33-16b8-4adf-9414-e15d0fda7c53", "Client-Info": "gco-seva-adapter-voice" } }, "key": "d6f4712e-99c6-4c57-8381-2a8238533a87" }
Tests:
loadash
_.get(ob, 'values.attributes.channelId');
normal
ob?.values?.attributes?.channelId
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
loadash
normal
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):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition Json** The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for measuring the performance of accessing a specific attribute (`channelId`) in an object (`ob`). The attribute is nested within another object (`values.attributes`). **Script Preparation Code** The script preparation code defines a schema for a record called `ParticipantCallEvent` with various attributes, including `partnerId`, `conversationId`, and `userId`. This schema is used to create an instance of the `ob` object. **Html Preparation Code** The HTML preparation code includes a script tag that loads the Lodash library version 4.16.0 from a CDN. **Individual Test Cases** There are two individual test cases: 1. `loadash`: Measures the execution time of accessing the `channelId` attribute using the `_.get()` function from Lodash. 2. `normal`: Measures the execution time of accessing the `channelId` attribute without using any library or special JavaScript features. **What's being tested?** Both test cases are testing the performance of accessing a nested attribute (`channelId`) in an object (`ob`). The main difference between the two test cases is that one uses Lodash's `_get()` function, while the other does not. **Options compared** Two options are being compared: 1. Using Lodash's `_get()` function to access the `channelId` attribute. 2. Accessing the `channelId` attribute directly without using any library or special JavaScript features. **Pros and Cons of each approach** 1. **Using Lodash's `_get()` function:** * Pros: + Provides a more concise and readable way to access nested attributes. + Reduces the risk of errors caused by typos or incorrect attribute names. * Cons: + Adds additional overhead due to the library call and its execution time. 2. **Accessing `channelId` directly:** * Pros: + Avoids adding extra library overhead and potentially slower execution times. * Cons: + Requires more manual effort and may lead to errors if not done correctly. **Other considerations** * The use of Lodash's `_get()` function provides a safer and more readable way to access nested attributes, but it also introduces additional overhead. The choice between using the library or accessing the attribute directly depends on the specific requirements and trade-offs. * The benchmark results show that using Lodash's `_get()` function results in slower execution times compared to accessing the `channelId` attribute directly. **Alternative approaches** Other alternative approaches could include: 1. Using a custom implementation for accessing nested attributes, which would avoid relying on any external libraries. 2. Using a different library or framework that provides a more efficient way to access nested attributes. 3. Optimizing the existing code to reduce the overhead of Lodash's `_get()` function or other libraries. These alternatives would depend on the specific requirements and constraints of the project, as well as the trade-offs between performance, readability, and maintainability.
Related benchmarks:
reduce and sort (native vs lodash)
filter uniq
Find events real
[MH-4355][1000]: lodash / es6 filter perf
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?