Benchmark: Direct object access vs _.get

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

dataset = {
    data: {
        records: []
    }
}

Tests:

vanilla
dataset.data.records
lodash get
_.get(dataset, 'data.records')

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 8 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 8 runs

vanilla

51.8M/s

lodash get

5.6M/s

Fastest: vanilla (9.3x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ vanilla: 51,810,400 ops/sec
• lodash get: 5,594,020 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
vanilla
lodash get

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

vanilla

263.5M/s

lodash get

21.5M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ vanilla	263,538,816 Ops/sec
lodash get	21,458,872 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests two different ways of accessing an object's property in JavaScript: using direct object access (`dataset.data.records`) and using the `_get` function from the Lodash library (`_.get(dataset, 'data.records')`).

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. Direct object access (`dataset.data.records`)
2. Using the `_get` function from Lodash (`_.get(dataset, 'data.records')`)

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Direct Object Access**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward
	* Cons:
		+ May lead to slower performance if the property is accessed in a chain (e.g., `dataset.data.records[0]`)
		+ Less readable code, especially for complex object accesses
2. **Using _get from Lodash**
	* Pros:
		+ More readable code, as it explicitly states the path to the desired property
		+ Can provide better performance in some cases (e.g., if the property is accessed frequently)
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an additional library dependency (Lodash)
		+ May add overhead due to function calls

**Library: Lodash**

The `_get` function from Lodash is a utility function that allows you to safely access nested properties of an object. It takes two arguments: the first argument is the object, and the second argument is a string representing the path to the desired property (e.g., `'data.records'`). The function returns the value of the property at the specified location.

**Special JS feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. It only uses standard JavaScript and Lodash functions.

**Other alternatives**

If you prefer to avoid using an external library, you can also consider using other alternatives for accessing nested properties, such as:

* Using bracket notation (`dataset['data']['records']`)
* Using the `in` operator (`'data.records' in dataset`)
* Using a recursive function to access the property (e.g., `function getRecord(dataset) { if (dataset.data.records) return dataset.data.records[0]; else return null; }`)

However, these alternatives may have similar pros and cons to using direct object access or `_get` from Lodash.

Direct object access vs _.get (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `vanilla vs lodash get`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

vanilla

lodash get

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 8 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 8 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Direct object access vs _.get (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: vanilla vs lodash get

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

vanilla

lodash get

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 8 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 8 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `vanilla vs lodash get`