Benchmark: Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Optional Chaining
var _obj$a, _obj$a$b, _obj$a$b$c; var _badObj$a, _badObj$a$b, _badObj$a$b$c; ((_obj$a = obj.a) === null || _obj$a === void 0 ? void 0 : (_obj$a$b = _obj$a.b) === null || _obj$a$b === void 0 ? void 0 : (_obj$a$b$c = _obj$a$b.c) === null || _obj$a$b$c === void 0 ? void 0 : _obj$a$b$c.d) || 2 ((_badObj$a = badObj.a) === null || _badObj$a === void 0 ? void 0 : (_badObj$a$b = _badObj$a.b) === null || _badObj$a$b === void 0 ? void 0 : (_badObj$a$b$c = _badObj$a$b.c) === null || _badObj$a$b$c === void 0 ? void 0 : _badObj$a$b$c.d) || 2
Lodash
_.get(obj, "a.b.c.d", 2) _.get(badObj, "a.b.c.d", 2)

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: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/14.1.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 14 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Optional Chaining	10833121.0 Ops/sec
Lodash	1346156.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches:

1. **Optional Chaining**: This is a JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020 that allows for more concise and expressive way of accessing nested properties.
2. **Lodash _.get() method**: Lodash is a popular utility library that provides a variety of functions to perform common tasks, including _.get(), which retrieves a value from an object using a dot notation.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of Optional Chaining with the Lodash _.get() method when accessing nested properties in two objects: `obj` and `badObj`.

* **Object access**: The benchmark accesses three levels deep into each object (`a.b.c.d`) to test the performance difference between the two approaches.
* **Default value**: Both approaches are tested with a default value of 2, which means that if the property is not found or does not exist, it returns the default value.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Optional Chaining**:
	+ Pros: More concise and expressive way of accessing nested properties, reduces verbosity.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of parsing and executing the expression.
* **Lodash _.get() method**:
	+ Pros: Well-established and widely used utility library with good performance characteristics.
	+ Cons: Adds an extra dependency (the Lodash library) and may require more code to achieve the same result.

**Library**

In this benchmark, the Lodash library is being used for its _.get() method. The purpose of this method is to provide a convenient way to retrieve values from objects using a dot notation, similar to how we access properties in JavaScript.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

Optional Chaining is a special JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020 that allows for more concise and expressive way of accessing nested properties. It uses the `?.` syntax, which returns `undefined` if the property does not exist, instead of throwing an error like traditional object access.

**Other alternatives**

If you don't want to use Optional Chaining or Lodash _.get() method, you can also use other approaches such as:

* **Brute force**: Accessing each level of the nested property individually, like `obj.a.b.c.d`.
* **JSONPath-like syntax**: Using a JSONPath-like syntax to access the nested property, like `obj.a.b.c.d`.
* **Manual indexing**: Accessing the object using manual indexing and arithmetic operations.

However, these alternatives may be less concise and more verbose than Optional Chaining or Lodash _.get() method.

Related benchmarks:

Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash | 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs Lodash

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Optional Chaining

Lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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