Benchmark: Compare lodash.get with native code

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,
    a: 1,
    b: '',
    c: '',
    d: false,
    e: '',
    f: 1,
    g: {
        h: 1,
        i: 'Dannag'
    },
    k: 1,
    l: 1,
}

Tests:

Lodash get
_.get(data, 'g.i');
Native code
const get = (o, path) => path.split('.').reduce((o = {}, key) => o[key], o); get(data, 'g.i')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and analyze what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using the `lodash` library's `get` function and implementing a custom native code solution. The goal is to measure which approach is faster.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array manipulation, and more. In this benchmark, `lodash.get` is used to access nested properties in an object. The `get` function takes two arguments: the object to access (`o`) and the path to the desired property (e.g., `'g.i'`). It returns the value of the property at that path if it exists.

**Custom Native Code Solution**

The second approach is implemented using a simple recursive function in JavaScript:
```javascript
const get = (o, path) => {
  const keys = path.split('.').reduce((acc, key) => [...acc, key], []);
  return keys.reduce((o = {}, key) => o[key] ? o[key] : null, o);
};
```
This function takes the object `o` and the path `path` as input. It splits the path into individual keys using the dot (`.`) character and then recursively traverses the object to find the value at that path.

**Comparison of Approaches**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Lodash `get` Function**
	+ Pros:
		- Simplifies access to nested properties
		- Reduces the risk of errors due to explicit handling of null/undefined values
	+ Cons:
		- Introduces additional overhead due to the need to load and execute a separate library
		- May not be optimized for performance, especially in extreme cases (e.g., deeply nested objects)
* **Custom Native Code Solution**
	+ Pros:
		- Avoids the overhead of loading a separate library
		- Can potentially optimize performance by eliminating unnecessary checks and operations
	+ Cons:
		- Requires explicit handling of errors and null/undefined values, which can increase code complexity
		- May be less readable due to the need for recursive function calls

**Other Considerations**

* **JavaScript Features**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript features like `let` and `const` declarations may not have a significant impact on performance compared to traditional variable declaration using `var`.

* **Alternatives**

Some alternatives to the custom native code solution could include:

1. Using the `in` operator to access nested properties:
```javascript
const get = (o, path) => {
  for (let key of path.split('.')) {
    if (key in o) {
      return o[key];
    }
  }
};
```
2. Utilizing a library like `fast-get` which provides an optimized implementation of the `get` function.
3. Implementing a more efficient recursive function using techniques like memoization or caching.

It's worth noting that these alternatives may not necessarily outperform the custom native code solution, and the optimal approach depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.

In summary, the benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using `lodash.get` and implementing a custom native code solution. The pros and cons of each approach are discussed, and some alternative solutions are mentioned for consideration.

Related benchmarks:

Compare lodash.get with native code (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash get vs Native code

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash get

Native code

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):