Benchmark: nested get - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var calc = {calcFun: {param: {colId: 'kdgasdjh'}}};

Tests:

lodash
_.get(calc, 'calcFun.param.colId');
vanilla
calc && calc.calcFun && calc.calcFun.param && calc.calcFun.param.colId

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
vanilla

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 explain the benchmark and its various aspects.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark measures how fast JavaScript can access nested properties of an object using two different approaches: with and without the Lodash library.

**Script Preparation Code**
The script preparation code defines an object `calc` with a nested property `param`, which has another nested property `colId`. This setup creates a complex object structure that will be used to test the benchmark.

**Html Preparation Code**
The HTML preparation code includes a reference to the Lodash library, which is used in one of the benchmark cases.

**Benchmark Cases**

### 1. Lodash (`_.get(calc, 'calcFun.param.colId')`)

* **Description:** This case uses the `_.get()` function from the Lodash library to access the nested property `colId`. The `_` symbol refers to the Lodash object.
* **Pros:**
	+ Faster execution times due to optimized functions in Lodash.
	+ Reduced memory allocation and garbage collection overhead, as Lodash handles the property access internally.
* **Cons:**
	+ Adds an additional dependency to the benchmark (the Lodash library), which may affect test results on environments that don't have it loaded.
	+ May not be suitable for environments where Lodash is not available or has not been properly initialized.

### 2. Vanilla (`calc && calc.calcFun && calc.calcFun.param && calc.calcFun.param.colId`)

* **Description:** This case uses a vanilla JavaScript approach to access the nested property `colId`. It relies on chaining the `&&` operator to check for nullability at each level of nesting.
* **Pros:**
	+ Does not add any dependencies or overhead beyond what is required by JavaScript itself.
	+ Can be used in environments where Lodash is not available or has not been properly initialized.
* **Cons:**
	+ May result in slower execution times due to the overhead of repeated property checks and potential nullability issues.
	+ Requires careful consideration to avoid performance regressions caused by unnecessary branching.

**Latest Benchmark Results**
The latest benchmark results show that:

* The vanilla JavaScript approach takes approximately 1.2 seconds for each 794,589 executions per second (FPS).
* The Lodash library-based approach takes approximately 0.05 seconds for each 794,589 FPS.

These results suggest that using the Lodash library can provide a significant performance boost when accessing deeply nested properties in JavaScript objects.

**Other Alternatives**
If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to benchmarking or optimizing JavaScript performance, here are some other options:

* **ES6 Promises**: Consider using ES6 Promises (e.g., `Promise.resolve(calc.calcFun.param.colId)` instead of vanilla property access) for improved readability and potential performance benefits.
* **Object Proxy**: Utilize the `Object.create()` method with a Proxy object to create a hierarchical structure, allowing for more efficient property access and manipulation.
* **For...in Loops**: Experiment with using For...in loops to iterate over object properties, potentially offering better performance compared to traditional bracket notation (e.g., `calc['calcFun.param.colId']`).

Keep in mind that the optimal approach will depend on your specific use case, requirements, and target environment.

Related benchmarks:

nested get (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs vanilla

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

vanilla

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):