Benchmark: Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {a: {b: {c: {d: 1}}}}
var badObj

Tests:

Optional Chaining
obj.a == null ? undefined : obj.a.b == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c.d badObj.a == null ? undefined : badObj.a.b == null ? undefined : badObj.a.b.c == null ? undefined : badObj.a.b.c.d
Lodash
_.get(obj, "a.b.c.d") _.get(badObj, "a.b.c.d")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Optional Chaining
Lodash

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The website measures the performance of two approaches to access nested properties in an object:

1. Optional Chaining (`obj.a == null ? undefined : obj.a.b == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c.d`)
2. Using Lodash's `_.get` method with a string path (`_.get(obj, "a.b.c.d")`)

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates two objects: `obj` and `badObj`. `obj` has nested properties, while `badObj` is similar to `obj` but with some properties missing.

```javascript
var obj = {a: {b: {c: {d: 1}}}};
var badObj = {a: {b: {c: {d: 1}}}};
```

**Html Preparation Code**

There's no HTML preparation code, which means that the benchmark only measures the performance of the JavaScript code itself.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. "Optional Chaining"
2. "Lodash"

Each test case has a unique `Benchmark Definition` string that defines how to access the nested properties.

**Library: Lodash**

In the second test case, Lodash's `_.get` method is used to access the nested properties. The purpose of this library is to provide a convenient way to access nested properties in an object by providing a flexible and efficient path-based approach.

However, when the same property is accessed using optional chaining (`obj.a == null ? undefined : ...`) or without any library, it's likely that the browser's built-in `in` operator or other mechanisms are used internally. This might be optimized for performance compared to using an external library like Lodash.

**Special JS Feature: Optional Chaining**

The first test case uses optional chaining (`obj.a == null ? undefined : ...`). This is a relatively new JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020 (ES2020) that allows you to access nested properties in a more concise way. It's also known as the "optional member expression" or "optional chaining operator".

Optional chaining is supported by modern browsers, including Chrome 65 and later.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to write your own implementation of this benchmark without using Lodash, you could use other approaches such as:

* Using a custom function with multiple `in` checks
* Creating a recursive function to access nested properties
* Utilizing the `hasOwnProperty` method in combination with the `in` operator

However, these alternatives would likely be less efficient and more verbose compared to using Lodash's `_.get` method or optional chaining.

In summary, the benchmark tests the performance of two approaches: using Lodash's `_.get` method with a string path versus optional chaining. The use of Lodash provides a convenient way to access nested properties, while optional chaining is a more concise and modern JavaScript feature that might be optimized for performance by browsers.

Related benchmarks:

Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs Lodash

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Optional Chaining

Lodash

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):