Benchmark: Lodash get vs native get

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var item1 = { type: 'test', id: 1 };
var item2 = { id: 2 };

Tests:

lodash get
const type1 = _.get(item1, 'type', '').toLowerCase(); const type2 = _.get(item2, 'type', '').toLowerCase();
native get
const type1 = (item1.type || '').toLowerCase(); const type2 = (item2.type || '').toLowerCase();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash get
native get

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two approaches to convert the value of an object property to lowercase: using Lodash's `_.get()` function versus native JavaScript methods.

**Options Compared**

The test case uses the following options:

1. **Lodash _.get()**: This method retrieves a nested property from an object, providing default values if the key does not exist. In this case, it's used to convert the value of the `"type"` property to lowercase.
2. **Native JavaScript methods**: Specifically, the `||` operator and the `toLowerCase()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Lodash _.get()**:
	* Pros: Provides a clear and concise way to retrieve nested properties, handles default values, and is likely to be more readable for developers familiar with Lodash.
	* Cons: Introduces an external dependency (Lodash), which may add overhead, and may not be as performant due to the additional indirection.
2. **Native JavaScript methods**:
	* Pros: No external dependencies, potentially faster execution since it doesn't involve a function call.
	* Cons: Requires manual handling of default values, making the code more prone to errors.

**Other Considerations**

In addition to performance, other factors like code maintainability and readability should be considered. Using Lodash's `_.get()` might make the code more readable for developers already familiar with it, while using native JavaScript methods might encourage a more "native" approach.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for various tasks, including array manipulation, object iteration, and string processing. In this benchmark, Lodash's `_.get()` function is used to retrieve nested properties from objects.

**Special JS feature or syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to test alternative approaches for converting a property value to lowercase, you could consider the following:

1. Using template literals: `const type2 = `${item2.type || ''}toLowerCase()`;
2. Using the `toString()` method followed by `toLowerCase()`: `const type2 = (item2.type || '').toString().toLowerCase();`
3. Using a custom implementation of the `_.get()` function, optimized for performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as concise or readable as Lodash's original implementation, and their performance characteristics may vary depending on your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash get vs native get (version: 0)

Lodash get vs native get -> toLowerCase

Comparing performance of: lodash get vs native get

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash get

native get

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):