Benchmark: Direct vs optional chaining fixed

Script Preparation code:

var detail1 = null
var detail2 = {prop1: 'asdf', prop2: null}
var detail3 = {prop1: null, prop2: 'asdf'}
var detail4 = {prop1: 'asdf', prop2: 'asdf'}
var detail5 = {prop1: null, prop2: null}

Tests:

All details direct
let y1 = detail1 && detail1.prop1 && detail1.prop2 let y2 = detail2 && detail2.prop1 && detail2.prop2 let y3 = detail3 && detail3.prop1 && detail3.prop2 let y4 = detail4 && detail4.prop1 && detail4.prop2 let y5 = detail5 && detail5.prop1 && detail5.prop2
All details optional
let y1 = detail1?.prop1 && detail1?.prop2 let y2 = detail2?.prop1 && detail2?.prop2 let y3 = detail3?.prop1 && detail3?.prop2 let y4 = detail4?.prop1 && detail4?.prop2 let y5 = detail5?.prop1 && detail5?.prop2

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
All details direct
All details optional

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 definition and test cases.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two approaches for accessing nested properties in JavaScript objects:

1. **Direct access**: This approach uses the dot notation (e.g., `detail1.prop1`) to access nested properties.
2. **Optional chaining**: This approach uses the optional chaining operator (`?.`) (introduced in ECMAScript 2020) to safely navigate nested properties (e.g., `detail1?.prop1`).

**Comparison of options**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches:

* Direct access: This method can lead to runtime errors if a property is missing, but it's often more straightforward and faster.
* Optional chaining: This method uses the optional chaining operator to avoid runtime errors when accessing nested properties. It's generally safer but may be slower due to additional overhead.

Pros and cons of each approach:

**Direct access**

Pros:

* Faster execution
* Fewer unnecessary checks

Cons:

* May throw runtime errors if a property is missing
* Less safe than optional chaining

**Optional chaining**

Pros:

* Safer, as it avoids runtime errors when accessing nested properties
* More flexible, as it allows for the use of null or undefined values without throwing errors

Cons:

* May be slower due to additional overhead (e.g., checks and function calls)
* Less straightforward, as it requires understanding the optional chaining operator

**Library usage**

The benchmark uses a simple JavaScript object (`detail1`, `detail2`, etc.) with nested properties. There are no external libraries being used in this specific test case.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The benchmark uses the optional chaining operator (`?.`) which is a new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020. This operator allows for safe navigation of nested properties and avoids runtime errors when accessing missing properties.

If you're not familiar with the optional chaining operator, here's an example:
```javascript
let x = { foo: 'bar' };
let y = x?.foo; // y is now 'bar', or undefined if foo is null or undefined

// vs

let z = x && x.foo;
```
In summary, MeasureThat.net is testing two approaches for accessing nested properties in JavaScript objects:

1. Direct access (dot notation) which can lead to runtime errors but is often faster.
2. Optional chaining (`?.`) which is safer and more flexible but may be slower.

By comparing these two approaches, the benchmark aims to provide insights into performance, safety, and code readability trade-offs when working with nested properties in JavaScript objects.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
All details direct	1232587.0 Ops/sec
All details optional	1951150.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Direct vs optional chaining fixed (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: All details direct vs All details optional

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

All details direct

All details optional

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):