Benchmark: Lodash.get vs object-path vs Property dot notation vs 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 && obj.stuff.things && obj.stuff.things.other && obj.stuff.things.other.stuff;
Optional chaining
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
Optional chaining

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 what is being tested in the provided JSON.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark defines four test cases to compare the performance of different approaches:

1. **Lodash.get**: Uses the `_.get` method from Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library.
2. **object-path**: Uses the `objectPath.get` method from object-path, another JavaScript utility library.
3. **Native**: Uses native JavaScript syntax with optional chaining (`?.`) to access nested properties.
4. **Optional chaining**: Same as above, but using the `?.` operator to access nested properties.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these four approaches in accessing a deeply nested object property. The test cases use different methods to navigate the object:

* Lodash and object-path use functions to traverse the object.
* Native uses optional chaining (`?.`) to access the property directly.
* Optional chaining uses the `?.` operator to access the property.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each approach:

1. **Lodash.get**: Pros: well-established library, easy to use. Cons: adds overhead due to function call, may be slower than native options.
2. **object-path**: Pros: designed specifically for object navigation, efficient implementation. Cons: less familiar to developers without experience with the library.
3. **Native (Optional chaining)**: Pros: simple and expressive syntax, no function calls or additional libraries required. Cons: requires support for optional chaining in JavaScript (added in ES6+).
4. **Optional chaining**: Pros: concise syntax, efficient implementation. Cons: requires support for optional chaining in JavaScript.

**Library explanations**

* **Lodash**: A popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functional programming helpers.
* **object-path**: A lightweight library specifically designed for object navigation and manipulation.

**Special JS features or syntax**

The benchmark uses the `?.` operator, which is a new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020 (ES10). The `?.` operator allows safe navigation through nested properties, returning `undefined` if any of the preceding expressions are falsy. This feature is widely supported in modern browsers and JavaScript engines.

**Other alternatives**

If you need to compare performance with other approaches, here are some additional options:

* **Query.js**: A lightweight query library for JavaScript that provides a similar API to object-path.
* **Deep-merge**: A library designed specifically for deeply merging objects, which could be compared to the native approach using optional chaining.
* **Function call-based approaches**: Using functions like `foo.bar()` or `baz.foo()` instead of Lodash's `_get` method or object-path's `get` method.

Related benchmarks:

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

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

Comparing performance of: Lodash get vs object path vs Native vs Optional chaining

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash get

object path

Native

Optional chaining

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):