Benchmark: Optional chaining test

Script Preparation code:

var myConfig = {
	config: {
		exp: 1000,
	}
}

var myEmptyConfig = {
	config: {
	}
}

Tests:

Optional chaining
if (!('config' in myConfig)) return; if (myConfig?.config?.exp) { console.log( myConfig?.config?.exp * 1000 ); }
Var reuse
const config = myConfig?.config; if (!config) return; if (config.exp) { console.log( config.exp * 1000 ); }
Empty config chaining
if (!('config' in myEmptyConfig)) return; if (myEmptyConfig?.config?.exp) { console.log( myEmptyConfig?.config?.exp * 1000 ); }
Empty config var reuse
const config = myEmptyConfig?.config; if (!config) return; if (config.exp) { console.log( config.exp * 1000 ); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Optional chaining
Var reuse
Empty config chaining
Empty config var reuse

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'll break down the provided JSON for MeasureThat.net and explain what's being tested, the options compared, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined in the "Script Preparation Code" section:

```javascript
var myConfig = {
  config: {
    exp: 1000,
  }
}

var myEmptyConfig = {
  config: {}
}
```

Two configuration objects are created:

* `myConfig`: Has a nested property `exp` with value `1000`.
* `myEmptyConfig`: Also has a nested property `config`, but it's an empty object.

**Individual Test Cases**

Four test cases are defined, each representing a different approach to access the `exp` property in the configuration objects. The test case names indicate the approach:

1. **Optional Chaining**: Uses the optional chaining operator (`?.`) to access the `exp` property.
```javascript
if (!('config' in myConfig)) return;
  if (myConfig?.config?.exp) {
    console.log(myConfig?.config?.exp * 1000);
  }
```
2. **Var Reuse**: Uses a variable `config` to store the result of accessing the `config.exp` property.
```javascript
const config = myConfig?.config;
if (!config) return;
  if (config.exp) {
    console.log(config.exp * 1000);
  }
```
3. **Empty Config Chaining**: Similar to Optional Chaining, but uses an empty object as the value of `myConfig.config`.
```javascript
if (!('config' in myEmptyConfig)) return;
  if (myEmptyConfig?.config?.exp) {
    console.log(myEmptyConfig?.config?.exp * 1000);
  }
```
4. **Empty Config Var Reuse**: Similar to Var Reuse, but uses an empty object as the value of `config`.
```javascript
const config = myEmptyConfig?.config;
if (!config) return;
  if (config.exp) {
    console.log(config.exp * 1000);
  }
```
**Comparison**

The test cases compare the performance of each approach:

* Optional Chaining and Empty Config Chaining use the optional chaining operator (`?.`) to access the `exp` property. These approaches are likely to be faster, as they avoid the need for explicit type checking.
* Var Reuse and Empty Config Var Reuse use a variable to store the result of accessing the `config.exp` property. These approaches may be slower, as they require an additional step of assigning the value to the variable.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Optional Chaining**: Pros:
	+ Fastest approach
	+ Avoids explicit type checking
Cons: May not work with older browsers that don't support optional chaining.
* **Var Reuse**: Pros: None notable. Cons:
	+ Slower approach due to additional assignment step.
* **Empty Config Chaining**: Similar pros and cons as Optional Chaining.
* **Empty Config Var Reuse**: Similar pros and cons as Var Reuse.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses a simple `console.log` statement to measure the performance. In a real-world scenario, you might want to use a more sophisticated measurement method, such as measuring the execution time of the code or using a profiling tool.
* The benchmark only tests the access of the `exp` property in the configuration objects. You may want to expand the test cases to cover other scenarios, such as nested properties or different data types.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, consider:

* Using a library like `lodash` that provides a `get()` method for accessing nested properties.
* Using a functional programming approach, such as using the `reduce()` method to access nested properties.
* Using a caching mechanism, such as `memoize`, to avoid repeated lookups of the same property value.

Related benchmarks:

Optional chaining test (version: 0)

Just a test

Comparing performance of: Optional chaining vs Var reuse vs Empty config chaining vs Empty config var reuse

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Optional chaining

Var reuse

Empty config chaining

Empty config var reuse

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):