Benchmark: GET vs _GET - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {
  description: 'Creates a deep copy of source, which should be an object or an array.',
  myNumber: 123456789,
  myBoolean: true,
  jayson: {
    stringify: 'JSON.stringify() method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string....',
    parse: 'JSON.parse() method parses a JSON string...'
  }
};

Tests:

LODASH
const values = _.get(obj, 'jayson')
JS
const values = obj.jayson

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
LODASH
JS

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.

I'd be happy to help you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark provided by MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that represents the test case being performed. In this case, there are two benchmark definitions:

1. `"GET vs _GET"`: This is not a traditional benchmarking scenario, but rather an introduction to the concept of benchmarks on MeasureThat.net. It doesn't provide any specific code or functionality.
2. Two individual test cases:
	* `"LODASH"`: Tests the performance of accessing a nested object property using Lodash's `_.get()` method.
	* `"JS"`: Tests the performance of accessing a nested object property without using Lodash.

**Options Compared**

The two options compared are:

1. Using Lodash's `_.get()` method to access a nested object property (`LODASH`).
2. Directly accessing a nested object property without using any additional library or function (`JS`).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Lodash (`.get()` method)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a convenient way to access nested object properties in a concise manner.
		+ Reduces the chance of errors due to incorrect property names or depth.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds an additional library dependency, which can increase the overall size of the application and potentially impact performance.
		+ May introduce additional overhead due to the function call and parameter processing.
2. **Direct Access (JS)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Eliminates the need for an additional library or function, reducing potential dependencies and overhead.
		+ Can be more efficient in terms of execution time since it doesn't involve a function call.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more manual effort to write and maintain correct property paths.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for common tasks, such as:

* String manipulation
* Array manipulation
* Object manipulation
* Functional programming utilities

In this benchmark, Lodash's `_.get()` method is used to access the nested object property `jayson.stringify`. The `_` symbol refers to the Lodash namespace.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net may use other features, such as `async/await`, `promises`, or modern language features like `const` and `let`, to create more realistic benchmarks.

**Other Alternatives**

If you prefer not to use Lodash or want to explore alternative approaches, here are a few options:

1. **Use the bracket notation (`obj.jayson`)**: This approach eliminates the need for an additional library or function.
2. **Use a recursive function to access nested properties**: You can write a custom function that recursively traverses the object graph to access deep property paths.
3. **Use a different utility library, such as Underscore.js or Ramda**: These libraries provide similar functionality to Lodash but may have different APIs and performance characteristics.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require more manual effort to implement and maintain, especially for complex property paths.

Related benchmarks:

GET vs _GET (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: LODASH vs JS

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

LODASH

JS

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):