Benchmark: switch vs lookup (8 cases)

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'abcdefgh';
str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 8));

Tests:

switch
switch (str) { case 'a': console.log('A'); break; case 'b': console.log('B'); break; case 'c': console.log('C'); break; case 'e': console.log('C'); break; case 'f': console.log('C'); break; case 'g': console.log('C'); break; case 'h': console.log('C'); break; }
lookup
var objLiteral = { a: function() { console.log('A'); }, b: function() { console.log('B'); }, c: function() { console.log('C'); }, d: function() { console.log('C'); }, e: function() { console.log('C'); }, f: function() { console.log('C'); }, g: function() { console.log('C'); }, h: function() { console.log('C'); } } objLiteral[str]();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
switch
lookup

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 JSON and benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches:

1. **Switch statement**: This approach uses a traditional `switch` statement to determine which case to execute based on the value of the variable `str`.
2. **Lookup**: This approach uses object notation (`objLiteral[str]`) to dynamically access and execute a function from an object.

**Options Compared**

The two approaches are compared in terms of their execution speed, measured in executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Switch Statement**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be more readable and maintainable for simple cases.
		+ Can be optimized by the JavaScript engine for switch statements.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires explicit case labels, which can make it harder to add or remove cases.
		+ May lead to slower performance due to the overhead of fall-through cases.
2. **Lookup**:
	* Pros:
		+ More flexible and dynamic than switch statements.
		+ Can be optimized by the JavaScript engine for object property access.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be less readable and maintainable due to its dynamic nature.
		+ May lead to slower performance due to the overhead of object lookup.

**Library and Purpose**

The `objLiteral` object is used in the benchmark. This object is created using a literal syntax and contains multiple functions, each corresponding to one of the cases in the switch statement or one of the strings in the lookup approach. The purpose of this library is to provide a simple way to create and execute dynamic functions based on a string value.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark uses the `Math.floor` function and the `Math.random()` function to generate random values for the variable `str`. This allows the test to run multiple iterations with different input values, providing a more representative measure of performance.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to optimize this benchmark further, you could consider exploring other approaches, such as:

1. **Template literals**: Instead of using string concatenation or object notation, you could use template literals (e.g., `switch` with template literal expressions) for better readability and maintainability.
2. **Array methods**: You could explore using array methods like `find()` or `some()` to access the functions in the object, which might provide better performance due to optimizations in modern JavaScript engines.
3. **Caching**: If you know that the input strings are fixed and won't change, you could consider caching the results of the switch statement or lookup approach to avoid repeated computations.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not necessarily improve performance for all use cases, but they can provide a more efficient or readable way to implement dynamic function execution.

Related benchmarks:

switch vs lookup (8 cases) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: switch vs lookup

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

switch

lookup

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):