Benchmark: Lodash.get vs object-path vs Property dot notation (optional chaining)

HTML Preparation code:

 <script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.4/lodash.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
    <script src="https://cdn.rawgit.com/mariocasciaro/object-path/master/index.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {
  stuff: {
    things: {
      stuff: 'things',
      things: 'stuff',
      other: {
        stuff: 'things'
      }
    }
  }
};

Tests:

Lodash get
_.get(obj, 'stuff.things.other.stuff');
object path
objectPath.get(obj, 'stuff.things.other.stuff');
Native
obj?.stuff?.things?.other?.stuff;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash get
object path
Native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Native

214.6M/s

Lodash get

14.1M/s

object path

5.5M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Native	214,558,032 Ops/sec
Lodash get	14,126,017 Ops/sec
object path	5,543,987 Ops/sec

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 explain what's being tested.

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three ways to access nested properties in an object: Lodash's `get()` function, the `object-path` library, and native JavaScript's optional chaining (`?.`) syntax.

**Lodash's `get()` function**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides various functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array manipulation, and more. The `get()` function is specifically designed to safely navigate nested objects, returning `undefined` if the path does not exist.

In this benchmark, Lodash's `get()` function is used to access the nested property `stuff.things.other.stuff`.

**object-path library**

The object-path library provides a simple and expressive way to traverse and manipulate objects in JavaScript. The `get()` function in object-path works similarly to Lodash's `get()`, but with some differences in its behavior.

In this benchmark, object-path is used to access the nested property `stuff.things.other.stuff`.

**Native JavaScript's optional chaining (`?.`) syntax**

The optional chaining operator (`?.`) was introduced in ECMAScript 2020 (ES2020) and provides a concise way to access nested properties in objects. The syntax `obj?.prop?.nestedProp` returns `undefined` if any of the levels are null or undefined.

In this benchmark, native JavaScript's optional chaining is used to access the nested property `stuff.things.other.stuff`.

**Pros and Cons**

* Lodash's `get()` function:
	+ Pros: Provides a safe way to navigate nested objects, handles errors elegantly.
	+ Cons: Adds extra overhead due to the library itself.
* object-path library:
	+ Pros: Lightweight and easy to use, provides a simple way to traverse objects.
	+ Cons: May not be as robust as Lodash's `get()` function for complex navigation scenarios.
* Native JavaScript's optional chaining:
	+ Pros: Concise syntax, lightweight, and built-in to modern browsers and Node.js environments.
	+ Cons: May not work in older environments or with specific use cases.

**Other considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following:

* Performance: If you need high-performance access to nested properties, native JavaScript's optional chaining might be a good choice. Lodash's `get()` function and object-path library may add unnecessary overhead.
* Code readability: Optional chaining provides a concise syntax, but it can also make code harder to read if not used carefully. Lodash's `get()` function and object-path library provide more verbose syntax but are often easier to understand for complex navigation scenarios.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to these approaches, consider:

* Using the `in` operator instead of optional chaining.
* Utilizing the `hasOwnProperty()` method or `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty()` to check if an object has a specific property before accessing it.
* Implementing your own utility function for navigating nested objects.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide the same level of convenience and readability as Lodash's `get()` function, object-path library, or native JavaScript's optional chaining.

Lodash.get vs object-path vs Property dot notation (optional chaining) (version: 0)

Modified from https://gist.github.com/acao/018fa0943da0e39c96f57fca64cd0c02

Comparing performance of: `Lodash get vs object path vs Native`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash get

object path

Native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Lodash.get vs object-path vs Property dot notation (optional chaining) (version: 0)

Modified from https://gist.github.com/acao/018fa0943da0e39c96f57fca64cd0c02

Comparing performance of: Lodash get vs object path vs Native

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash get

object path

Native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Lodash get vs object path vs Native`