Benchmark: Null and undefined checks

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var value = { a: 123 }

Tests:

value == null
value == null
_.isUndefined(value) || _.isNull(value)
_.isUndefined(value) || _.isNull(value)
isNil(value)
_.isNil(value)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
value == null
_.isUndefined(value) \|\| _.isNull(value)
isNil(value)

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 what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of three different ways to check for `null` and `undefined` values in JavaScript:

1. Direct comparison using the equality operator (`value == null`)
2. Using a library function `_isUndefined(value)` from Lodash
3. Using another library function `_isNil(value)` from Lodash

**Options compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of three different approaches to check for `null` and `undefined` values:

* Direct comparison using the equality operator (`value == null`)
* Using a library function `_isUndefined(value)` from Lodash
* Using another library function `_isNil(value)` from Lodash

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Direct comparison using `value == null`**
	* Pros: Simple, straightforward, and easy to understand.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower due to the overhead of the equality operator.
		+ May not work correctly in certain edge cases (e.g., NaN or non-numeric values).
2. **Using `_isUndefined(value)` from Lodash**
	* Pros: Part of a popular and widely-used library, provides a more concise way to check for `undefined`.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds an external dependency (Lodash) that may not be present in all environments.
		+ May have slower performance due to the overhead of function calls.
3. **Using `_isNil(value)` from Lodash**
	* Pros: Similar to `_isUndefined`, but specifically designed for `null` values, which may be more efficient.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds an external dependency (Lodash) that may not be present in all environments.

**Library functions**

The benchmark uses two library functions:

1. **_isUndefined(value)`**: A function from Lodash that checks if a value is `undefined`.
2. **_isNil(value)`**: A function from Lodash that checks if a value is `null`.

Both functions are designed to be more concise and expressive than direct comparisons, but they also add an external dependency (Lodash) that may not be present in all environments.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and does not utilize any advanced JavaScript concepts.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to check for `null` and `undefined` values include:

1. Using the `typeof` operator (`typeof value === 'undefined'`)
2. Using a conditional statement with an explicit `null` check (`if (value == null) { ... }`)
3. Using a function that checks for both `undefined` and `null` values, such as `_isNothing(value)` from Lodash.

However, these alternatives may have similar performance characteristics to the three approaches being tested in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Null and undefined checks (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: value == null vs _.isUndefined(value) || _.isNull(value) vs isNil(value)

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

value == null

_.isUndefined(value) || _.isNull(value)

isNil(value)

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):