Benchmark: && vs optional chaining vs nothing

Script Preparation code:

var job = {
  "summary": {
    "total_actions": 4,
    "finished_actions": 4
  },
  "updated_at": "2020-07-15T10:24:42.364000000Z",
  "job_id": "4b1733e7-c8e0-4fdd-a7f1-13d3ab725c92",
  "description": "Job from our export",
  "created_at": "2020-07-15T10:24:40.975000000Z",
  "status": "finished",
  "tags": {
    "export_id": [
      "8848c5d8-fd44-43c0-b7f2-1428d0f4891a" 
    ]
  }
}

Tests:

&&
if (job.tags && job.tags.export_id) { // do nothing }
optional chaining (?.)
if (job.tags?.export_id) { // do nothing }
Nothing
if (job.tags.export_id) { // do nothing }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
&&
optional chaining (?.)
Nothing

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and discussed.

**Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different approaches for null-checking in JavaScript. The tests are created using MeasureThat.net, a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition json provides information about the test case:

* **Name**: "&& vs optional chaining vs nothing"
* **Description**: "How to better null-check"

This suggests that the benchmark is focused on evaluating the performance of different methods for avoiding null pointer exceptions or null checks in JavaScript.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three individual test cases, each with a unique approach:

1. `&&` (Double Ampersand): This approach uses the double ampersand operator (`&&`) to check if `job.tags` is truthy before attempting to access its `export_id` property.
2. Optional Chaining (`?.`): This approach uses optional chaining, introduced in JavaScript ES6, which allows accessing nested properties of an object without throwing an error if any of the preceding properties are null or undefined.
3. "Nothing" (No null-checking): This approach simply checks if `job.tags.export_id` exists, without performing any null checks.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches:

* **&&**: Verifies that `job.tags` is truthy before accessing its properties.
* **Optional Chaining (`?.`)**: Allows accessing nested properties of an object without throwing an error if any preceding property is null or undefined.
* "Nothing" (No null-checking): Does not perform any null checks.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons for each approach:

1. `&&`:
	* Pros: Verifies that the property exists before accessing it, which can prevent errors.
	* Cons: Can lead to slower performance if the check fails frequently.
2. Optional Chaining (`?.`):
	* Pros: Allows accessing nested properties without throwing an error, reducing the risk of exceptions.
	* Cons: May not be as effective for preventing null pointer exceptions in all cases.
3. "Nothing" (No null-checking):
	* Pros: Can improve performance by avoiding unnecessary checks.
	* Cons: Increases the risk of null pointer exceptions if the property is accessed without checking.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries mentioned, but note that optional chaining (`?.`) was introduced in JavaScript ES6. If you're using an older version of JavaScript, this syntax may not be supported.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches for null-checking in JavaScript include:

1. Using the `in` operator to check if a property exists: `if (job.tags in job.tags.export_id)`.
2. Using a try-catch block to catch exceptions: `try { console.log(job.tags.export_id); } catch (e) {}`.
3. Using a conditional statement with an empty object: `if (typeof job.tags === 'object' && job.tags.export_id !== undefined)`.

These approaches have their own trade-offs and may not be as performant or efficient as the ones tested in this benchmark.

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/117.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 117 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
&&	10157000.0 Ops/sec
optional chaining (?.)	20100854.0 Ops/sec
Nothing	20239432.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

&& vs optional chaining vs nothing (version: 0)

How to better null-check

Comparing performance of: && vs optional chaining (?.) vs Nothing

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

&&

optional chaining (?.)

Nothing

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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