Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal in javascript

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'abcdef';
str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 3));

Tests:

Switch
switch (str) { case 'a': console.log('A'); break; case 'b': console.log('B'); break; case 'c': console.log('C'); break; case 'd': console.log('D'); break; case 'e': console.log('E'); break; case 'f': console.log('F'); break; }
Object Literal
var objLiteral = { a: function() { console.log('A'); }, b: function() { console.log('B'); }, c: function() { console.log('C'); }, d: function() { console.log('D'); }, e: function() { console.log('E'); }, f: function() { console.log('F'); } } objLiteral[str]();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Switch
Object Literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Switch	534599.8 Ops/sec
Object Literal	495240.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: `switch` statements and object literals in JavaScript.

**What is being tested?**

In this benchmark, the script preparation code generates a random string `str` with 3 possible characters ('a', 'b', or 'c'). The script then uses either a `switch` statement or an object literal to determine which function to call based on the last character of the string.

**Options being compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Switch Statement**: A traditional `switch` statement is used to check the value of `str` against a set of predefined cases.
2. **Object Literal**: An object literal is used to define a mapping between the characters in `str` and the corresponding functions to call.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Switch Statement**:
	+ Pros: Can be more readable and maintainable, especially for complex logic.
	+ Cons: May have slower execution due to the overhead of string comparison and case lookup.
* **Object Literal**:
	+ Pros: Can be more concise and efficient, especially for simple mappings.
	+ Cons: May require more memory to store the object literal, and can be less readable for complex logic.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, there is no specific library being used. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may optimize certain features or syntax, such as `switch` statements with long chains of cases.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntaxes being used in this benchmark other than the standard `switch` statement and object literals.

**Other alternatives**

Other alternatives to these approaches could include:

* Using a `lookupTable` array to store the functions to call based on the character values
* Using a regular expression to match the last character of the string against a pattern
* Using a function pointer or a closure to encapsulate the logic

However, it's worth noting that these alternatives may not provide significant performance improvements over the `switch` statement and object literal approaches.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided script preparation code is:

```javascript
var str = 'abcdef';
str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 3));
```

This code generates a random string `str` with 3 possible characters ('a', 'b', or 'c') and assigns it to the variable after generating a new random index.

**Individual Test Cases**

The two individual test cases are:

* **Switch**: Uses a traditional `switch` statement to determine which function to call based on the last character of the string.
```javascript
switch (str) {
  case 'a':
    console.log('A');
    break;
  case 'b':
    console.log('B');
    break;
  case 'c':
    console.log('C');
    break;
  case 'd':
    console.log('D');
    break;
  case 'e':
    console.log('E');
    break;
  case 'f':
    console.log('F');
    break;
}
```

* **Object Literal**: Uses an object literal to define a mapping between the characters in `str` and the corresponding functions to call.
```javascript
var objLiteral = {
  a: function() { console.log('A'); },
  b: function() { console.log('B'); },
  c: function() { console.log('C'); },
  d: function() { console.log('D'); },
  e: function() { console.log('E'); },
  f: function() { console.log('F'); }
}
objLiteral[str]();
```

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal in javascript (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Object Literal

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Object Literal

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Switch

Object Literal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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