Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Compare get
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Lodash get vs Native code
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.13/lodash.min.js'></script>
Script Preparation code:
var data = { id: 1, zip6: 1, name: '', exportPath: '', resttourDeletable: false, toCheckIgnoreList: '', zoneId: 1, zone: { id: 1, name: 'Dannag' }, defaultDeliveryDuration: 1, defaultPlanningType: 1, }
Tests:
Lodash get
_.get(data, 'zone.name');
Native code
const get = (o, path) => path.split('.').reduce((o = {}, key) => o[key], o); get(data, 'zone.name')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Lodash get
Native code
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):
**Benchmark Explanation** The provided benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches for accessing nested properties in JavaScript objects. **Approaches being compared:** 1. **Lodash's `_.get()` method**: This approach uses the Lodash library, which provides a utility function for safely navigating and retrieving values from objects. 2. **Native code using a custom implementation**: This approach defines a simple recursive function `get()` that splits the property path into individual keys and iterates through the object to find the value. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **Lodash's `_.get()` method**: * Pros: + Efficient and concise way to access nested properties. + Robust error handling and type checking. * Cons: + Additional dependency on Lodash library. + May have slower startup times due to the need to load the library. 2. **Native code using a custom implementation**: * Pros: + No additional dependencies or overhead. + Can be more cache-friendly and efficient for complex paths. * Cons: + More verbose and prone to errors (e.g., null pointer exceptions). + May require manual handling of edge cases. **Library usage** The benchmark uses Lodash version 4.17.13, which is a popular and widely-used library for utility functions in JavaScript. **Special JavaScript features or syntax** None are explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. **Other alternatives** If you're interested in alternative approaches, here are a few: 1. **Using `in` operator**: You can use the `in` operator to check if a property exists in an object and then access its value using bracket notation (`obj[key]`). 2. **Using `hasOwnProperty()` method**: The `hasOwnProperty()` method checks if an object has a specific property as its own property (not inherited from the prototype chain). You can use this to avoid potential issues with inherited properties. 3. **Using `Object.keys()` and `reduce()` methods**: You can use `Object.keys()` to get an array of an object's property names and then use the `reduce()` method to iterate through the array and access the desired property. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, readability, or ease of maintenance compared to the Lodash implementation.
Related benchmarks:
es6 vs lodash - small data
es6 vs lodash - medium data
es6 vs lodash - large data
es6 destructuring vs lodash _.get asjfoasijdfio
lodash has vs object.hasOwn
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?