Benchmark: Switch vs new Map

Tests:

Switch
const input = 10; switch(input) { case 1: return true; case 2: return true; case 3: return true; case 4: return true; case 5: return true; case 6: return true; case 7: return true; case 8: return true; case 9: return true; case 10: return true; }
Map
const input = 10; const LUT = new Map([ [0, true], [1, true], [2, true], [3, true], [4, true], [5, true], [6, true], [7, true], [8, true], [9, true], [10, true], ]) LUT.get(input);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Switch
Map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/134.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Switch	197336128.0 Ops/sec
Map	4868720.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests the performance of two approaches to handle different input values: using a `switch` statement and using a `Map` data structure.

**Options compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Switch statement**: A traditional `switch` statement is used to check the value of the input variable and execute a corresponding block of code.
2. **Map lookup**: A `Map` object is created with key-value pairs, where each key corresponds to an input value (from 0 to 10), and the function tries to retrieve the value associated with the input using the `get()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Switch statement**:
	+ Pros: Simple and straightforward, easy to understand and maintain.
	+ Cons: Can be slow for large numbers of cases, as it involves a table lookup and branching.
* **Map lookup**:
	+ Pros: Fast, especially for large datasets, since it involves a hash table lookup with an average time complexity of O(1).
	+ Cons: Requires more memory to store the map, and the code may be less readable due to the use of maps.

**Other considerations**

In addition to performance, other factors to consider when choosing between these two approaches include:

* Readability and maintainability: The switch statement is generally easier to read and understand than a Map lookup.
* Code reuse: If you need to handle multiple cases with similar behavior, using a `Map` might be more suitable.

**Library and special JS feature**

The benchmark uses no external libraries or special JavaScript features beyond the standard JavaScript syntax. However, the use of `const` for declaring variables is a recent feature (ECMAScript 2015) that may not be supported in older browsers.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The provided script preparation code is empty, which means that the benchmark assumes the input variable is already defined and passed as an argument to the function. In a real-world scenario, you would typically add some setup code to define the input variable and any necessary data structures (e.g., maps).

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives for handling different input values could be:

* **Array-based approach**: Using an array of cases and branching through it.
* **Object-based approach**: Using an object with properties corresponding to each case, and using the `hasOwnProperty()` method or bracket notation to check if a property exists.
* **Regexp-based approach**: Using regular expressions to match against input values.

Each of these alternatives has its own trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs new Map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Map

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Switch

Map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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