Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
_.get vs nativefeaf
(version: 2)
Comparing performance of:
_.get vs native
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Tests:
_.get
var object = { 'a': [{ 'b': { 'c': 3 } }] }; _.get(object, 'a[0].b.c');
native
var object = { 'a': [{ 'b': { 'c': 3 } }] }; /* const get = (obj, path, defaultValue) => { const result = String.prototype.split.call(path, /[,[\].]+?/) .filter(Boolean) .reduce((res, key) => (res !== null && res !== undefined) ? res[key] : res, obj); return (result === undefined || result === obj) ? defaultValue : result; } */ const get = (obj, item, failure) => obj.item || failure; get(object, 'a[0].b.c');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
_.get
native
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):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Definition and Script Preparation Code** The benchmark definition is represented by the provided JSON file, which contains two test cases: 1. `_.get` (Lodash) 2. `native` The script preparation code for both test cases is empty, indicating that no custom initialization or setup is required. However, the HTML preparation code includes a link to Lodash.js library version 4.17.5. This means that the first test case (`_.get`) will use the Lodash library, while the second test case (`native`) will rely on a custom implementation. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares two approaches: 1. **Lodash's _.get method**: The first test case uses Lodash's `_.get` method to access nested properties of an object. 2. **Custom implementation (native)**: The second test case implements a custom function, `get`, which also accesses nested properties of an object. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: **Lodash's _.get method** Pros: * Well-tested and maintained library * Efficient implementation for simple cases Cons: * May have slower performance due to the overhead of a function call * Can be less efficient for complex or deeply nested object access **Custom implementation (native)** Pros: * Typically faster than using a library function, as it avoids the overhead of a function call * Allows for more control over the implementation and optimizations Cons: * Requires manual implementation and maintenance, which can lead to errors or performance issues if not done correctly * May require additional dependencies or setup **Other Considerations** When evaluating these two approaches, it's essential to consider the specific requirements of your use case. For example: * If you need to access simple, flat objects with a small number of properties, Lodash's _.get method might be sufficient. * If you're working with complex, deeply nested object graphs or require fine-grained control over the implementation, the custom `get` function might be a better choice. **Library: Lodash** Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a collection of utility functions for various tasks, including string manipulation, array and object operations, and more. The _.get method specifically allows you to access nested properties of an object in a concise and readable way. In this benchmark, the use of Lodash's _.get method implies that the test case requires efficient and convenient access to nested properties, which is a common pattern in JavaScript development. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** This benchmark does not require any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is typical for web development. The custom implementation (`native`) uses basic JavaScript constructs like functions, object access, and conditional statements, making it accessible to most developers familiar with the language. I hope this explanation helps you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net!
Related benchmarks:
es6 destructuring vs lodash _.get asjfoasijdfio
isFunction vs typeof function 6
isEmpty vs. vanilla
lodash isFunction vs native
Lodash isString fork
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?