Benchmark: Property access: Lodash.get VS ternary dot notation VS optional chaining

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.17.21/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var something = {
    props: {
        user: {
            firstName: "Troy",
            lastName: "Aikman"
        }
    }
}

Tests:

Lodash get
_.get(something.props, 'user.firstName');
Native
something.props.user ? something.props.user.firstName : undefined
Optional Chaining
something?.props?.user?.firstName

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash get
Native
Optional Chaining

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 the provided benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to access nested properties in JavaScript:

1. Lodash `get` method
2. Ternary dot notation (`condition ? expression : default`)
3. Optional chaining (introduced in ECMAScript 2020)

These approaches are being compared to determine which one is the most efficient.

**Options Compared**

The three options are:

1. **Lodash `get` method**: This is a utility function from the Lodash library that allows accessing nested properties of an object. It takes two arguments: the object and a string representing the path to the desired property.
2. **Ternary dot notation**: This is a shorthand way of writing conditional expressions using dot notation. For example, `condition ? expression : default` is equivalent to `if (condition) { return expression; } else { return default; }`.
3. **Optional chaining**: This is a new syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2020 that allows accessing nested properties with a null or undefined check. The syntax is similar to the ternary approach, but uses the optional chaining operator (`?.`) instead of parentheses.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each option:

1. **Lodash `get` method**:
	* Pros: Easy to use, well-maintained library with extensive documentation.
	* Cons: Requires importing an additional library, can be slower due to function call overhead.
2. **Ternary dot notation**:
	* Pros: Lightweight and easy to understand.
	* Cons: Can lead to code duplication if used extensively, may not perform as well as other approaches for deeply nested objects.
3. **Optional chaining**:
	* Pros: Native support in modern browsers, concise syntax, and can be faster than Lodash `get` method due to reduced function call overhead.
	* Cons: Limited browser support (only introduced in ECMAScript 2020), may not work well with older JavaScript versions.

**Library and Syntax**

The benchmark uses the Lodash library for its `get` method. The `lodash.min.js` script is imported using a CDN link.

Optional chaining syntax was introduced in ECMAScript 2020, so it's only supported in modern browsers that have adopted this feature.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the trade-offs:

* Lodash `get` method provides a simple and well-maintained solution but requires importing an additional library. It may be overkill for small projects or when performance is not a concern.
* Ternary dot notation is lightweight but can lead to code duplication if used extensively. It's suitable for small, shallow objects or when readability is more important than performance.
* Optional chaining provides native support in modern browsers and concise syntax, making it an attractive choice for new projects or when performance is critical.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives to accessing nested properties include:

* Using the `in` operator with bracket notation (e.g., `obj['prop']`)
* Using a recursive function to access nested properties
* Using a library like jQuery's `.prop()` method

However, these approaches may be less efficient or more verbose than the three options being compared in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Property access: Lodash.get VS ternary dot notation VS optional chaining (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash get vs Native vs Optional Chaining

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash get

Native

Optional Chaining

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):