Benchmark: Optional chaining vs native code(Opt)

Script Preparation code:

var foo={bar:{baz:{qux:{x:1}}}}

Tests:

Optional Chaining
foo?.bar?.baz?.qux;
Native
foo.bar && foo.bar.baz && foo.bar.baz.qux

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Optional Chaining
Native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data for the MeasureThat.net JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two different approaches to access nested properties in an object: optional chaining (`foo?.bar?.baz?.qux;`) and native code (`foo.bar && foo.bar.baz && foo.bar.baz.qux`). The name of the benchmark is "Optional Chaining vs native code (Opt)".

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is a JavaScript object `var foo={bar:{baz:{qux:{x:1}}}}` that serves as a test subject for the benchmark. This object has nested properties, and the goal is to access these properties using the two different approaches mentioned above.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that the benchmark only tests the JavaScript code itself.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Optional Chaining**: The first test case uses optional chaining (`foo?.bar?.baz?.qux;`) to access the nested properties of the `foo` object.
2. **Native**: The second test case uses a more traditional approach with explicit checks for null or undefined values (`foo.bar && foo.bar.baz && foo.bar.baz.qux`).

**Library and Purpose**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in this benchmark, as it only relies on built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses optional chaining (`?.`) and the nullish coalescing operator (`??`), which is not widely supported in older browsers. This suggests that the benchmark is targeting modern JavaScript engines, such as those used by Chrome 88.

**Pros and Cons of Approaches**

1. **Optional Chaining (??)**:
	* Pros: More concise and readable way to access nested properties.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the need to create a new object and check for null or undefined values.
2. **Native Code (`&&`)**:
	* Pros: Faster, as it avoids creating a new object and checks for null or undefined values in a more traditional way.
	* Cons: Less concise and more verbose.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark measures the execution time of each approach, which can be influenced by factors such as:

* JavaScript engine optimizations
* Browser-specific features and plugins
* Hardware performance

It's essential to note that this benchmark is not exhaustive, and other approaches or edge cases might exist.

**Alternatives**

If you were to create a similar benchmark, you could consider adding additional test cases for other approaches, such as:

* Using the `in` operator (`foo['bar'] && foo['bar'].baz && foo['bar'].baz.qux`)
* Using destructuring assignment (`let { baz: qux } = foo.bar;`)

Keep in mind that creating a comprehensive benchmark requires careful consideration of various factors and test cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.151 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Optional Chaining	7741299.5 Ops/sec
Native	2620892.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Optional chaining vs native code(Opt) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs Native

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Optional Chaining

Native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):