Benchmark: Lodash.get vs Lodash.property vs native

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var person = {name: 'Frederick', lastName: 'Corcino Alejo', foo: { bar: "baz" } };
var p = _.property("foo.bar");

Tests:

Lodash get
_.get(person, 'foo.bar');
_property
p(person);
native
person.foo.bar;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash get
_property
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 22 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:138.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/138.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 138 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash get	7485151.5 Ops/sec
_property	7371951.0 Ops/sec
native	1610802688.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net, comparing the performance of `_.get()` from Lodash, `_.property()` from Lodash, and native property access in JavaScript.

**Tested Options**

There are three options being compared:

1. **`.get()` from Lodash**: This function is used to access nested properties of an object using a string key.
2. **`.property()` from Lodash**: This function is similar to `.get()`, but it returns the property as a function, allowing for chaining method calls.
3. **Native Property Access**: This option uses native JavaScript syntax to access the nested property `foo.bar` directly on the object.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`.get()` from Lodash**:
	* Pros: Can handle complex key paths, supports function as a callback, and is part of the popular Lodash library.
	* Cons: Requires an additional dependency (Lodash), can be slower due to string manipulation, and may not be optimized for performance.
2. **`.property()` from Lodash**:
	* Pros: Returns the property as a function, allowing for chaining method calls, and is part of the popular Lodash library.
	* Cons: Requires an additional dependency (Lodash), can be slower due to string manipulation, and may not be optimized for performance compared to native access.
3. **Native Property Access**:
	* Pros: Fastest option, no dependencies required, and optimized for performance.
	* Cons: May require more code to achieve the same result as Lodash functions, and may not support complex key paths.

**Library and Purpose**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, object traversal, and functional programming. In this benchmark, Lodash's `_.get()` and `.property()` functions are used to access nested properties of an object.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark beyond the standard ECMAScript syntax for accessing properties.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore other alternatives, here are a few options:

* **Underscore.js**: Another popular utility library that provides similar functions to Lodash.
* **Ramda**: A functional programming library that provides a different set of functions for working with data.
* **Built-in JavaScript methods**: For simple property access, built-in methods like `in` or `hasOwnProperty` can be used. However, these may not support complex key paths.

**Benchmark Result Interpretation**

The benchmark results show the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) for each option on a specific device and browser configuration. The fastest option is native property access, followed by `.property()` from Lodash, and then `.get()` from Lodash.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.get vs Lodash.property vs native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash get vs _property vs native

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash get

_property

native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):