Benchmark: Optional Chaining plus Nullish Coalescing versus _.get lodash

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Optional Chaining
var c = obj.a == null ? undefined : obj.a.b == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c.d c == null ? 2 : c var d = badObj.a == null ? undefined : badObj.a.b == null ? undefined : badObj.a.b.c == null ? undefined : badObj.a.b.c.d d == null ? 2 : d
Lodash
_.get(obj, "a.b.c.d", 2) _.get(badObj, "a.b.c.d", 2)

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 21 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 21 runs

Optional Chaining

4.3M/s

Lodash

2.8M/s

Fastest: Optional Chaining (1.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Optional Chaining: 4,290,982 ops/sec
• Lodash: 2,778,864 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

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:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Optional Chaining

94.1M/s

Lodash

6.4M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Optional Chaining	94,085,704 Ops/sec
Lodash	6,352,210 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to access nested object properties: Optional Chaining (also known as nullish coalescing) and Lodash's `_.get()` function.

**Optional Chaining**

This approach uses a chained comparison syntax (`?.`) to safely navigate through the object hierarchy. The basic idea is to check if an object property exists before attempting to access it. If the property doesn't exist, the expression returns `undefined`. To avoid this issue, Optional Chaining provides two additional operators:

* `?.` (optional chaining operator): Returns `undefined` if any part of the chain is `null` or `undefined`.
* `??` (nullish coalescing operator): Returns one value if the other is nullish (either `null` or `undefined`).

In the benchmark, Optional Chaining is used to access nested object properties using the following syntax:
```javascript
var c = obj.a == null ? undefined : obj.a.b == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c.d
```
This expression checks each level of nesting before attempting to access the property, avoiding potential errors.

**Lodash's `_.get()` function**

The Lodash library provides a utility function called `_.get()`, which allows you to safely navigate through object hierarchies. The basic syntax is:
```javascript
_.get(obj, 'a.b.c.d', 2)
```
This expression attempts to access the property at the specified path (`'a.b.c.d'`) on the provided object (`obj`). If any part of the path doesn't exist, it returns the default value (`2`).

**Pros and Cons**

**Optional Chaining:**

Pros:

* Lightweight and efficient, as it only requires a single expression evaluation.
* Eliminates the need for explicit error handling.

Cons:

* Can be less readable than other approaches, especially for complex nested structures.
* May not perform well in extremely deep or complex object hierarchies.

**Lodash's `_.get()` function:**

Pros:

* Provides a clear and concise syntax for navigating through object hierarchies.
* Allows for easy customization of error handling behavior (e.g., default values).

Cons:

* Requires an additional library import, which may add overhead.
* Can be less efficient than Optional Chaining due to the extra evaluation step.

**Other Considerations**

* For extremely deep or complex object hierarchies, Lodash's `_.get()` function might be more suitable due to its explicit error handling capabilities.
* When readability is crucial, Optional Chaining's chained comparison syntax can be a better choice.

**Library and Syntax Explanation**

The Lodash library provides the `_.get()` function, which allows you to safely navigate through object hierarchies. This function takes three arguments:

1. The object (`obj`) to access.
2. The path (`'a.b.c.d'`) to follow.
3. The default value (optional) to return if any part of the path doesn't exist.

The `_.get()` function returns either the actual property value or the default value, depending on whether the path exists.

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark aside from Optional Chaining and Lodash's `_.get()` function.

Optional Chaining plus Nullish Coalescing versus _.get lodash (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `Optional Chaining vs Lodash`

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Optional Chaining

Lodash

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 21 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 21 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Optional Chaining plus Nullish Coalescing versus _.get lodash (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs Lodash

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Optional Chaining

Lodash

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 21 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 21 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Optional Chaining vs Lodash`