Benchmark: testtest9897 - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var person = {test: {test2: 'test'}};

Tests:

lodash
_.get(person, 'test.test2');
reduce
"test.test2".split('.').reduce(function(a, b) { return a[b]; }, person);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
reduce

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 dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a platform for creating and running JavaScript microbenchmarks. It allows users to compare different approaches to measuring performance in various scenarios.

The provided benchmark definition consists of two test cases:

1. `_.get(person, 'test.test2');`: This test case uses the Lodash library (`lodash`) to access a nested property of an object.
2. `\r\n\"test.test2\".split('.').reduce(function(a, b) {\r\n  return a[b];\r\n}, person);`: This test case uses a custom implementation that splits a string by dots and then reduces it using the `reduce()` method to access a nested property of an object.

**Options compared**

The two test cases compare different approaches to accessing nested properties:

1. **Lodash's `_get()` function**: This function takes an object, a path, and returns the value at that path.
2. **Custom implementation with `split()`, `reduce()`, and dot notation**: This custom implementation manually splits the string by dots and then uses the `reduce()` method to access the nested property.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. **Lodash's `_get()` function**:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: External dependency on Lodash library, which may not be desirable in all scenarios.
2. **Custom implementation with `split()`, `reduce()`, and dot notation**:
	* Pros: No external dependencies, lightweight and easy to understand.
	* Cons: May be slower than Lodash's `_get()` function due to the overhead of string manipulation and reduce operation.

**Library**

In this benchmark, the Lodash library (`lodash`) is used. Lodash provides a set of utility functions that can improve code readability and performance in various scenarios. In this case, the `_get()` function is used to access nested properties of objects.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark. The test cases use standard JavaScript constructs such as object literals, dot notation, and the `reduce()` method.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

1. **Using `in` operator**: You could use the `in` operator to check if a property exists in an object, like this: `if (person.test && person.test.test2) { ... }`.
2. **Using ` bracket notation`**: You could use bracket notation (`[property]`) to access nested properties of objects, like this: `person['test']['test2']`.
3. **Using a loop**: You could write a custom loop to iterate over the string and access each property individually.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics compared to Lodash's `_get()` function or the custom implementation using `split()`, `reduce()`, and dot notation.

Overall, this benchmark provides a useful comparison of two approaches to accessing nested properties of objects. It highlights the trade-offs between using an external library like Lodash and writing a custom implementation.

Related benchmarks:

testtest9897 (version: 0)

test

Comparing performance of: lodash vs reduce

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

reduce

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):