Benchmark: Array.prototype.reduce() vs _.get() of lodash for nested objects without arrays

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.5/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var key = 'a.b.c';

var objects = {
  'a': {
    'b': {
      'c': 1234
    }
  }
};

Tests:

Array.prototype.reduce()
key.split('.').reduce(function(acc, cur) { return (acc || {})[cur]; }, objects);
_.get()
_.get(objects, key);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.reduce()
_.get()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Array.prototype.reduce()

8.1M/s

_.get()

5.2M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Array.prototype.reduce()	8,134,479 Ops/sec
_.get()	5,221,451 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON benchmark measures the performance of two different approaches to access nested objects in JavaScript:

1. `Array.prototype.reduce()`: This method reduces an array to a single value, accumulating a result by applying a specified function against each element in the array.
2. `_get()` from Lodash library: A utility function that provides a way to safely navigate nested object property paths.

The benchmark compares these two approaches for accessing nested objects without arrays.

**Options compared**

There are only two options being compared:

1. `Array.prototype.reduce()`
2. `_get()` from Lodash library

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **`Array.prototype.reduce()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ This is a built-in JavaScript method, so it's likely to be implemented efficiently.
		+ It provides a way to iterate over an array, even if there's only one element.
	* Cons:
		+ The function passed to `reduce()` must return a value that can be used as the next accumulator value. This might require some extra work for complex paths.
		+ Using this method for simple property access can lead to unnecessary function calls and iterations.
2. **_get()` from Lodash library**:
	* Pros:
		+ Specifically designed for safely navigating nested object property paths.
		+ Reduces the risk of errors caused by incorrect path concatenation or accessing non-existent properties.
	* Cons:
		+ An additional dependency is introduced, as it relies on the Lodash library.
		+ It might not be optimized for performance, especially if the library's implementation isn't tailored to this specific use case.

**Library and its purpose**

The `_get()` function from Lodash provides a safe way to access nested object properties. Its primary purpose is to prevent errors that can occur when accessing properties using string concatenation or array indexing, which might lead to `undefined` values or exceptions.

In the context of this benchmark, `_get()` is used to navigate the `objects` property path, which consists of multiple levels: `'a.b.c'`.

**Other considerations**

* In the `Script Preparation Code`, a variable `key` is defined with the value `'a.b.c'`. This will be used as the path to access in both benchmark definitions.
* The `Html Preparation Code` includes a script tag that loads the Lodash library version 4.17.5.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives for accessing nested objects might include:

1. Using string concatenation or array indexing directly, which can lead to errors and potential performance issues.
2. Implementing custom recursive functions or iterative solutions using methods like `for` loops or `forEach()`.
3. Utilizing other libraries or modules that provide similar functionality to `_get()`, such as `lodash-es` or `ramda`.

However, these alternatives would likely introduce additional dependencies, complexity, and potential performance overhead compared to the two options being benchmarked.

Array.prototype.reduce() vs _.get() of lodash for nested objects without arrays (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `Array.prototype.reduce() vs _.get()`

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Array.prototype.reduce()

_.get()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Array.prototype.reduce() vs _.get() of lodash for nested objects without arrays (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.reduce() vs _.get()

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Array.prototype.reduce()

_.get()

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: `Array.prototype.reduce() vs _.get()`