Benchmark: optional chaining vs lodash get

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

optional chaining
a=obj.a var t = a == null ? undefined : a.b == null ? undefined : a.b.c == null ? undefined : a.b.c.d
lodash get
var a = _.get(obj, "a.b.c.d")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
optional chaining
lodash get

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/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

optional chaining

13.1M/s

lodash get

12.1M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ optional chaining	13,063,132 Ops/sec
lodash get	12,102,255 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data for MeasureThat.net, which is used to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that represents the test case being run. In this case, there are two test cases: "optional chaining" and "lodash get". The difference between these two test cases lies in how they access nested properties of an object.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is used to set up the environment for the benchmark. In this case, it creates a simple JavaScript object `obj` with nested properties:
```javascript
var obj = {a: {b: {c: {d: 1}}}}
```
This object represents a real-world scenario where you might need to access nested properties.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code is used to load the required libraries for the benchmark. In this case, it loads the Lodash library version 4.17.5:
```html
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
```
Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for working with data structures such as arrays, objects, and more.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Optional Chaining**: This test case uses the optional chaining operator (`?.`) to access nested properties of the `obj` object. The benchmark definition is:
```javascript
a=obj.a\r\nvar t = a == null ? undefined : a.b == null ? undefined : a.b.c == null ? undefined : a.b.c.d
```
The purpose of this test case is to measure how fast JavaScript can execute the optional chaining expression.

2. **Lodash Get**: This test case uses the `_.get()` function from Lodash to access nested properties of the `obj` object. The benchmark definition is:
```javascript
var a = _.get(obj, "a.b.c.d")
```
The purpose of this test case is to measure how fast Lodash can execute the `_.get()` function.

**Pros and Cons**

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Optional Chaining**: This approach uses the optional chaining operator (`?.`) to access nested properties. The pros are:
	+ It's a native JavaScript feature that's widely supported.
	+ It's more concise and readable than other approaches.
* Cons:
	+ It might not be as efficient as other approaches because it creates an intermediate variable `t`.
* **Lodash Get**: This approach uses the `_.get()` function from Lodash to access nested properties. The pros are:
	+ It's a well-tested and optimized function that can handle complex data structures.
	+ It provides additional features like handling null or undefined values.
* Cons:
	+ It relies on an external library, which might add overhead.
	+ The benchmark result might be influenced by the Lodash version being used.

**Other Considerations**

Other considerations when running these benchmarks include:

* **JavaScript Engine**: Different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey) might optimize or interpret code differently, affecting the benchmark results.
* **Device Platform and Operating System**: The benchmark results might vary depending on the device platform and operating system being used.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to optional chaining and Lodash `_.get()` could be:

* Using other utility libraries like jQuery or Moment.js
* Implementing custom functions for accessing nested properties
* Using a more advanced data structure library like Redux or React Hooks

optional chaining vs lodash get (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `optional chaining vs lodash get`

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

optional chaining

lodash get

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 vs lodash get (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: optional chaining vs lodash get

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

optional chaining

lodash get

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 get`