Benchmark: switch-case vs obj vs custom fn

Tests:

switch-case
const options = ["top left", "top center", "top right", "left center", "right center", "bottom left", "bottom center", "bottom right"] const testIt = (fn) => { fn(); for (direction of options) fn(direction); } const getDirection = (direction) => { switch (direction) { case "top left": return "top-start"; case "top center": return "top"; case "top right": return "top-end"; case "left center": return "left"; case "right center": return "right"; case "bottom left": return "bottom-start"; case "bottom center": return "bottom"; case "bottom right": return "bottom-end"; default: return "top"; } }; testIt(getDirection);
custom fn
const options = ["top left", "top center", "top right", "left center", "right center", "bottom left", "bottom center", "bottom right"] const testIt = (fn) => { fn(); for (direction of options) fn(direction); } const getDirection = (direction = 'top') => { const [v, h] = direction.split(' '); const map = {left: 'start', right: 'end'}; return map[h] ? [v, map[h]].join(`-`) : v; }; testIt(getDirection);
objt
const options = ["top left", "top center", "top right", "left center", "right center", "bottom left", "bottom center", "bottom right"] const testIt = (fn) => { fn(); for (direction of options) fn(direction); } const getDirection = (direction) => { const map = { "top left": "top-start", "top center": "top", "top right": "top-end", "left center": "left", "right center": "right", "bottom left": "bottom-start", "bottom center": "bottom", "bottom right": "bottom-end" } return direction ? map[direction]: 'top'; }; testIt(getDirection);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
switch-case
custom fn
objt

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 and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different approaches:

1. `switch-case`
2. Object-based approach (`objt`)
3. Custom function-based approach (`custom fn`)

Each approach is used to determine a direction from a set of predefined directions (e.g., "top left", "top center", etc.).

**Switch-Case Approach**

This approach uses a `switch` statement with multiple cases to determine the direction.

```javascript
const getDirection = (direction) => {
  switch (direction) {
    case "top left":
      return "top-start";
    case "top center":
      return "top";
    case "top right":
      return "top-end";
    // ...
    default:
      return "top";
  }
}
```

Pros:

* Concise and easy to understand
* Performs well for small to medium-sized sets of directions

Cons:

* Performance can degrade as the number of cases increases
* May not be optimized for large datasets or complex logic

**Object-Based Approach (objt)**

This approach uses an object to map directions to their corresponding values.

```javascript
const getDirection = (direction) => {
  const map = {
    "top left": "top-start",
    "top center": "top",
    "top right": "top-end",
    // ...
  }
  return direction ? map[direction] : 'top';
}
```

Pros:

* Flexible and easy to extend with new directions
* May perform better for large datasets due to object lookup

Cons:

* May be slower than switch-case for small sets of directions
* Requires explicit mapping, which can lead to errors if not maintained correctly

**Custom Function-Based Approach (custom fn)**

This approach uses a custom function that takes a direction as input and returns the corresponding value.

```javascript
const getDirection = (direction) => {
  const [v, h] = direction.split(' ');
  const map = { left: 'start', right: 'end' };
  return map[h] ? [v, map[h]].join('-') : v;
}
```

Pros:

* Highly customizable and flexible
* May perform well for complex logic or large datasets

Cons:

* Can be slower than switch-case due to function calls
* Requires explicit mapping and logic, which can lead to errors if not maintained correctly

**Performance Comparison**

The benchmark results show that the `switch-case` approach performs the best in this specific scenario, followed closely by the `objt` approach. The `custom fn` approach is slower.

In general:

* For small to medium-sized sets of directions, switch-case may be a good choice due to its concise nature and performance.
* For large datasets or complex logic, object-based approaches like `objt` may be more suitable due to their flexibility and potential performance benefits.
* Custom function-based approaches may be suitable for complex logic or custom requirements but require careful consideration of performance implications.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches that could be explored include:

* Using a library or framework (e.g., Lodash) to simplify the mapping logic
* Utilizing caching or memoization techniques to improve performance
* Considering other data structures, such as arrays or trees, for mapping directions

However, these alternatives would depend on the specific requirements and constraints of the project.

Related benchmarks:

switch-case vs obj vs custom fn (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: switch-case vs custom fn vs objt

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

switch-case

custom fn

objt

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):