Benchmark: Object ref vs Switch

Tests:

Object
const state = { selected1: 0, selected2: 0} const reducer1 = type => { const allTypes = { ['SELECT1']: () => ({ ...state, selected1: 1 }), ['SELECT2']: () => ({ ...state, selected2: 2 }), } const actionMatch = allTypes[type] if (!actionMatch) return state return actionMatch() } return reducer1('SELECT2')
Switch
const state = { selected1: 0, selected2: 0} const reducer2 = type => { switch(type) { case 'SELECT1': return ({ ...state, selected1: 1 }) case 'SELECT@': return ({ ...state, selected2: 2 }) default: return state } } return reducer2('SELECT2')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object
Switch

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Purpose**
The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches: using an object-based switch statement (`Object`) and a traditional switch statement with case statements (`Switch`).

**Options Compared**

1. **Object**: This approach uses an object to represent the possible cases, where each key corresponds to a specific value and the associated function is called when that value is matched.
2. **Switch**: This approach uses a traditional switch statement with case statements to match against different values.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Object**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be more concise and easier to read, especially for multiple cases.
		+ Can avoid the need for explicit `default` or `break` statements.
	* Cons:
		+ May lead to slower performance due to object lookup, which can result in O(n) complexity (where n is the number of keys).
2. **Switch**
	* Pros:
		+ Typically faster and more efficient than object-based approach, as it avoids the overhead of object lookup.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be less concise and harder to read, especially for multiple cases.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries mentioned in the benchmark. However, the `Object` method uses a feature called "rest syntax" (`...state`) which is a shorthand way of spreading an object's properties into a new object.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Cache Misses**: Both approaches can suffer from cache misses if the switch value or object key is not in the cache.
2. **Constant Optimization**: Some modern JavaScript engines, like V8 (used by Chrome), have constant folding optimizations that might affect performance of both approaches.
3. **Native Code Generation**: Modern browsers use native code generation for certain functions and methods to improve performance. However, this optimization might not apply to switch statements.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following:

1. **Regex-based approach**: You can use regular expressions to implement a switch-like behavior.
2. **Pattern matching libraries**: There are JavaScript libraries like `switch-case` or ` switch-expression` that aim to provide a more concise and expressive syntax for switch statements.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics, so it's essential to evaluate them using benchmarking tools like MeasureThat.net.

Related benchmarks:

Object ref vs Switch (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object vs Switch

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object

Switch

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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