Benchmark: hasOwnProperty vs lodash has

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.10/lodash.min.js'></script>

Tests:

hasOwnProperty
const obj = {a: 1, b: null, c: 'some-string'}; return obj.hasOwnProperty('b');
has
const obj = {a: 1, b: null, c: 'some-string'}; return _.has(obj,'b');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
hasOwnProperty
has

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 break down the benchmark and its test cases.

**What is tested:**

The provided JSON represents two individual microbenchmarks that compare the performance of `hasOwnProperty` (built-in JavaScript method) with `_.has` from the Lodash library.

**Options compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`hasOwnProperty`**: This is a built-in JavaScript method that checks if an object has a property with the specified name.
2. **`.has` from Lodash library**: This method is part of the Lodash library and provides a more flexible way to check if an object has a property.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **`hasOwnProperty`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Lightweight (no external dependencies)
		+ Fast (native JavaScript implementation)
	* Cons:
		+ May not work as expected with objects that have inherited properties
2. **`.has` from Lodash library**:
	* Pros:
		+ More flexible and robust, handling cases where the property name is a string or an array of strings
	* Cons:
		+ External dependency (Lodash library)
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of the library

**Library:**

The Lodash library is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like string manipulation, array manipulation, and more. In this case, `.has` is part of the Lodash `Utility Functions` module.

**Other considerations:**

* The test cases use a simple object with null and string properties to ensure that both methods are tested in a basic scenario.
* The benchmark uses Firefox 109 as the browser, which may affect the results due to its version-specific optimizations or quirks.

**Alternative approaches:**

If you want to compare other `has` methods, you could consider adding more test cases with different variations, such as:

* Using a string array instead of a single property name
* Checking for a non-existent property name
* Using a more complex object structure

Keep in mind that each additional test case will increase the benchmark's complexity and potentially impact its accuracy.

Related benchmarks:

hasOwnProperty vs lodash has (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: hasOwnProperty vs has

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

hasOwnProperty

has

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):