Benchmark: Optional chaining vs reuse

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Chaining w/ exp
if (!('config' in myConfig)) return; if (myConfig?.config?.exp) { console.log( myConfig?.config?.exp ); }
Reuse w/ exp
const config = myConfig?.config; if (!config) return; if (config.exp) { console.log( config.exp * 1000 ); }
Chaining /w-o exp
if (!('config' in myEmptyConfig)) return; if (myEmptyConfig?.config?.exp) { console.log( myEmptyConfig?.config?.exp ); }
Reuse /w-o exp
const config = myEmptyConfig?.config; if (!config) return; if (config.exp) { console.log( config.exp ); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Chaining w/ exp
Reuse w/ exp
Chaining /w-o exp
Reuse /w-o exp

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 what is tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark tests two approaches to access and use the `config.exp` property:

1. **Optional Chaining (?.)**: This approach uses optional chaining to safely access nested properties. The syntax `myConfig?.config?.exp` checks if `myConfig` is not null or undefined, then checks if `config` exists in `myConfig`, and finally checks if `exp` exists in the resulting object.
2. **Reusing a Reference**: This approach reuses the reference to the `config.exp` property instead of creating a new variable.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

* Chaining (`if (!('config' in myConfig)) return;  ... if (myConfig?.config?.exp) { ... }`)
* Reusing a Reference (`const config = myConfig?.config; if (!config) return;  ... if (config.exp) { ... }`)

**Pros and Cons**

### Chaining

Pros:

* More explicit and self-documenting code
* Better suited for scenarios where the property path is complex or dynamic

Cons:

* May lead to more function calls and potentially slower performance due to JavaScript's call overhead
* Can result in a larger execution profile, making it harder to optimize

### Reusing a Reference

Pros:

* More efficient use of CPU resources
* Smaller execution profile makes it easier to optimize

Cons:

* Less explicit code can lead to confusion or errors if not properly managed
* May require more careful handling of edge cases

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, the `Optional Chaining` feature is used. Optional chaining allows you to access nested properties in an object using the `.?.` syntax.

**Other Considerations**

When writing performance-critical code, consider:

* Minimize function calls and unnecessary operations
* Optimize for small execution profiles (e.g., loops or single statements)
* Use caching, memoization, or other optimization techniques when applicable

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following options:

1. **Lazy Evaluation**: Only compute the value of `config.exp` when it's actually needed.
2. **Memoization**: Cache the result of expensive computations (like property lookups) to avoid repeated work.
3. **Just-In-Time (JIT) Compilation**: Compile frequently executed code paths into native machine code for improved performance.

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and coding style preferences.

For this benchmark, the `Reuse /w-o exp` test has the highest execution frequency, indicating it might be a good starting point for optimization efforts.

Related benchmarks:

Optional chaining vs reuse (version: 0)

Just a quick test

Comparing performance of: Chaining w/ exp vs Reuse w/ exp vs Chaining /w-o exp vs Reuse /w-o exp

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Chaining w/ exp

Reuse w/ exp

Chaining /w-o exp

Reuse /w-o exp

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):