Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal in javascript 1

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'abcdef';
str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 6));

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; rv:138.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/138.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 138 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Switch	419228.1 Ops/sec
Object Literal	363598.9 Ops/sec

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 and its results.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches: `switch` and object literal (also known as bracket notation) for accessing an array element in JavaScript.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code generates a random string of 6 characters, from 'a' to 'f', and assigns it to the variable `str`. This ensures that the benchmark is independent of the input value.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Switch**: A traditional `switch` statement is used to access the element in the array.
2. **Object Literal**: The bracket notation (e.g., `objLiteral[str]`) is used to access the element in the object.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Switch**
	+ Pros:
		- Can be more readable and maintainable for simple cases.
		- May have better performance due to the compiler optimization of `switch` statements.
	+ Cons:
		- May require more code lines, which can increase compilation time.
		- Less flexible than object literal notation.
* **Object Literal**
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and flexible than `switch`.
		- Can be used for dynamic property access (e.g., `objLiteral['a']`).
	+ Cons:
		- May have slower performance due to the overhead of dynamic property access.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that object literal notation often relies on JavaScript's built-in `Object.prototype` and its methods (e.g., `toString()`, `hasOwnProperty()`).

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for accessing an array element in JavaScript include:

1. **Array indexing**: Using the index to access the element directly (e.g., `str[0]`).
2. **For...of loop**: Using a `for...of` loop with the array's iterator (e.g., `for (const str of arr) { ... }`).

However, these alternatives are not included in this specific benchmark.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show that:

* **Switch**: 183287.421875 executions per second.
* **Object Literal**: 178191.65625 executions per second.

This suggests that the `switch` approach is slightly faster than the object literal notation in this particular scenario. However, it's essential to note that these results may vary depending on the specific use case and JavaScript engine being used.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal in javascript 1 (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):