Benchmark: native vs lodash newnew

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

data = {
    'meta': {
        'pagination': {
            'page': 1,
            'limit': 10
        }
    },
    'data': {
        'id': 123,
        'name': 'Example'
    },
    'errors': 'None'
}

Tests:

native
console.log(data && data.meta && data.data && data.errors ? data.data : data)
lodash
console.log(( _.has(data,'meta') && _.has(data,'data') && _.has(data,'errors') ) ? data.data : data)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native
lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/129.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
native	168413.8 Ops/sec
lodash	142348.9 Ops/sec

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 JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests two approaches for accessing nested properties in an object: native JavaScript and Lodash (a popular utility library).

The test case uses a JSON object `data` with three properties: `meta`, `data`, and `errors`. The objective is to access the value of `data` only if it exists. The test checks how fast each approach can retrieve this value.

**Options being compared:**

There are two approaches being compared:

1. **Native JavaScript**: This approach uses the ternary operator (`?`) to check if the property exists and returns `data.data` if it does, or `data` itself if it doesn't.
2. **Lodash (_.has)**: This approach uses the `_.has()` function from Lodash to check if each property exists before accessing it.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

### Native JavaScript

Pros:

* Lightweight and efficient
* Easy to understand and implement
* No external dependencies required

Cons:

* Can be slower for complex object traversals due to the overhead of the ternary operator
* May not work as expected if the object has a large number of properties or nested structures

### Lodash (.has)

Pros:

* Fast and efficient for complex object traversals
* Convenient and concise syntax
* Provides additional functionality beyond just property existence checks (e.g., _.has(), _.includes())

Cons:

* Requires an external dependency (Lodash)
* May have a slight overhead due to the function call

**Other considerations:**

* For simple cases, the native JavaScript approach may be faster or more suitable.
* For complex object traversals, Lodash's `.has()` function is likely to be faster and more efficient.
* The benchmark results indicate that the native JavaScript approach outperforms Lodash in this specific test case.

**Library description:**

The Lodash library provides a set of utility functions for working with JavaScript objects, arrays, and other data structures. In this context, `_.has()` is used to check if an object has a certain property or key.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special features or syntaxes mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. The focus is on comparing two basic approaches for accessing nested properties in JavaScript objects.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark and its findings!

Related benchmarks:

native vs lodash newnew (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native vs lodash

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native

lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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