Benchmark: Lodash get vs deconstruction

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var req = {
    body: {
        test: 'testing'
    }
}

Tests:

lodash get
const body = (req, ['body'], {})
deconstruct
const {body} = req

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash get
deconstruct

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash get	33100988.0 Ops/sec
deconstruct	32975524.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark definition and test cases for you.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, specifically testing two different approaches to accessing data in an object: using Lodash's `get` method and deconstruction (also known as destructuring).

**Options being compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Lodash's `get` method**: This approach uses the Lodash library to access a nested property of an object.
2. **Deconstruction**: This approach uses JavaScript's feature of destructuring to extract the desired value from the object.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**Lodash's `get` method**

Pros:

* More explicit and readable code
* Can handle cases where the property is not a direct child of the object

Cons:

* Requires an additional library (Lodash) to be included in the test environment
* May introduce overhead due to the library's initialization and lookup processes

**Deconstruction**

Pros:

* Native JavaScript support, so no additional libraries are required
* Can be more efficient than using a library like Lodash
* Easier to read and maintain for simple cases

Cons:

* Limited flexibility in handling complex object structures or nested properties
* May require explicit type definitions for the extracted value

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for common tasks, such as string manipulation, array operations, and object manipulation. In this case, the `get` method is used to access nested properties of an object in a more explicit and controlled manner.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The test cases use JavaScript's deconstruction feature (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to extract the desired value from the `req` object. This feature allows for concise and expressive code, making it easier to read and maintain.

**Other alternatives**

Other approaches to accessing nested properties of an object could include:

1. ** Bracket notation**: `req['body']['test']`
2. ** dot notation**: `req.body.test`

However, these approaches are less readable and more error-prone than deconstruction or Lodash's `get` method.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided JSON includes two lines of preparation code:

* `var req = {\r\n    body: {\r\n        test: 'testing'\r\n    }\r\n}`
* `\r\n<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>`

The first line defines a simple object `req` with a nested property `body.test`. The second line includes the Lodash library, which is used by the `get` method.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case represents a single execution of the benchmark:

1. **Lodash get**: This test case uses Lodash's `get` method to access the `test` property of the `body` object.
2. **Deconstruct**: This test case uses deconstruction to extract the `test` value from the `req.body` object.

These test cases provide a simple and controlled way to measure the performance difference between these two approaches.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash get vs deconstruction (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash get vs deconstruct

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash get

deconstruct

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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