Benchmark: pathOr vs direct

Script Preparation code:

var isObject = (v) => typeof v === 'object';
var pathOr = (pathToProp, object) => {
  if (object == null) {
    return undefined;
  }
  let currentObject = object;
  for (const key of pathToProp) {
    if (currentObject == null || !isObject(currentObject)) {
      return defaultValue;
    }

    currentObject = currentObject[key];
  }
  
  if (currentObject == null) {
    return undefined;
  }
  return currentObject;
}

Tests:

pathOr
pathOr(['foo'], { foo: 'bar' }); pathOr(['baz'], { foo: 'bar' });
direct
({ foo: 'bar' }).foo; ({ foo: 'bar' }).baz;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pathOr
direct

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON defines two JavaScript microbenchmarks:

1. `pathOr`: A custom function that navigates an object using a path-like syntax (`'pathToProp'`) to access a property.
2. `direct`: A direct access to an object's property using dot notation (`'.foo'`).

**What is tested?**

The benchmark measures the execution time difference between the two approaches:

* `pathOr` with a path-like syntax: e.g., `pathOr(['foo'], { foo: 'bar' });`
* `direct` with dot notation: e.g., `({ foo: 'bar' }).foo;`

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of two different approaches:

1. **Path-based access (`pathOr`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Allows for more complex navigation paths using an array of keys.
		+ Can be used to traverse nested objects more easily.
	* Cons:
		+ May introduce additional overhead due to string manipulation and lookup operations.
2. **Direct access (`direct` with dot notation)**
	* Pros:
		+ Typically faster, as it involves direct property access without the need for string manipulation.
	* Cons:
		+ Limited to accessing properties using a simple dot notation syntax.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. The `pathOr` function is a custom implementation, and the `direct` approach relies on the built-in dot notation syntax.

**Special JS features or syntax**

The `pathOr` function uses an arrow function (`(v) =>`) to define a simple function, and it also uses template literals (e.g., `\r\n`) for formatting. These are standard JavaScript features, but not essential for understanding the benchmark's purpose.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to implement this benchmark with alternative approaches, here are some options:

* **Using `Object.keys()`**: Instead of using a path-like syntax, you could use `Object.keys()` to get an array of object keys and then iterate over it.
* **Using recursion**: You could implement the `pathOr` function using recursive functions to navigate the object structure.
* **Using a different traversal strategy**: Depending on the specific requirements, you might consider using other traversal strategies, such as traversing an object's prototype chain or using a library like Lodash.

These alternatives would introduce changes in performance, complexity, and potential issues (e.g., handling edge cases). The benchmark measures the execution time difference between these approaches, providing insight into their relative performances.

Related benchmarks:

pathOr vs direct (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pathOr vs direct

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pathOr

direct

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):