Benchmark: if vs && vs ? - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var data = {
  someData: {
	idk: 'hi'
  }
};

Tests:

if
if(data) if(data.someData) if(data.someData.idk) console.log(true);
&&
console.log(data && data.someData && data.someData.idk);
?
console.log(data?.someData?.idk);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
if
&&
?

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
if	5106.1 Ops/sec
&&	6663.5 Ops/sec
?	6789.6 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that provides information about the test case being executed. In this case, we have three different benchmarks:

1. `if(data) if(data.someData) if(data.someData.idk) console.log(true);` - This test checks the execution time of a series of nested `if` statements.
2. `console.log(data && data.someData && data.someData.idk);` - This test checks the execution time of a chained comparison using the logical `&&` operator.
3. `console.log(data?.someData?.idk);` - This test checks the execution time of a nullable reference chain with optional chaining (`?.`).

**Comparison of Options:**

Let's analyze each option:

1. **Nested `if` statements**: This approach can be slow because it involves multiple conditional checks, which can lead to slower execution times due to the overhead of function calls and branch prediction.
2. **Chained comparison using `&&`**: This approach is generally faster than nested `if` statements because it allows for early short-circuiting, reducing the number of branches that need to be executed.
3. **Nullable reference chain with optional chaining (`?.`)**: This approach is a relatively new feature in JavaScript (introduced in ECMAScript 2020) that can improve performance by allowing null or undefined checks to be performed in a single step.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Nested `if` statements**:
	* Pros: Easy to understand and implement.
	* Cons: Can be slow due to multiple conditional checks.
2. **Chained comparison using `&&`**:
	* Pros: Faster than nested `if` statements because of early short-circuiting.
	* Cons: May lead to slower execution times if the chained comparisons are complex.
3. **Nullable reference chain with optional chaining (`?.`)**:
	* Pros: Can improve performance by reducing null or undefined checks.
	* Cons: Limited support in older browsers and versions of JavaScript.

**Library Usage:**

None of the benchmark tests use any external libraries, but they do utilize built-in JavaScript features like the `console` object.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

The benchmark uses optional chaining (`?.`) and the logical `&&` operator, which are relatively new features in JavaScript (introduced in ECMAScript 2020). These features can improve performance in certain scenarios but may not be supported in older browsers or versions of JavaScript.

**Other Alternatives:**

To compare these benchmarks, you could also test alternative approaches such as:

1. Using a loop instead of nested `if` statements.
2. Using the `||` operator for chained comparisons.
3. Using a different logic structure altogether (e.g., using a recursive function).

However, it's essential to note that JavaScript engines are highly optimized, and even small changes in logic can have significant performance implications. Therefore, it's often more effective to focus on optimizing the most critical parts of your codebase rather than trying to rewrite every test case.

In summary, this benchmark highlights the importance of understanding different approaches to conditional checks and logical operators in JavaScript, as well as the benefits of newer features like optional chaining.

Related benchmarks:

if vs && vs ? (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: if vs && vs ?

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

if

&&

?

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):