Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal v2

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'abc';
str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 3));

function a() {
	console.log('A');
}

function b() {
	console.log('B');
}

function c() {
	console.log('C');
}

Tests:

Switch
switch (str) { case 'a': a(); break; case 'b': b(); break; case 'c': b(); break; }
Object Literal
var objLiteral = { a: a, b: b, c: c } 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:

No previous run results

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

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark tests the performance of two different approaches for selecting code to execute based on a string value:

**1. `switch` statement:**

* **Definition:** The `switch` statement evaluates an expression and executes the block of code associated with the matching case.
* **Code:**
  ```javascript
  switch (str) {
    case 'a': a(); break;
    case 'b': b(); break;
    case 'c': b(); break;
  }
  ```
* **Pros:** Often considered the most readable and intuitive way to handle multiple conditional checks. Can be efficient for matching against known values.

**2. Object Literal:**

* **Definition:** An object literal associates string keys with function values. The code then looks up the function corresponding to the string value and calls it.
* **Code:**
  ```javascript
  var objLiteral = {
    a: a,
    b: b,
    c: c
  };
  objLiteral[str](); 
  ```
* **Pros:** Can be more flexible for handling a larger number of cases, especially if the mapping between values and functions is dynamic.

**Cons/Considerations:**

* **Switch Statements:** Can become inefficient with a large number of cases due to branch prediction overhead. Requires explicit `break` statements to prevent "fallthrough" to subsequent cases.
* **Object Literals:**  Can be less readable than `switch` for simple mappings. More memory intensive due to the creation of the object literal.

**Alternatives:**

* **Map:** A more dynamic and efficient alternative to object literals, especially when dealing with a large number of key-value pairs.

Let me know if you have any more questions about this benchmark or JavaScript performance optimization!

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal v2 (version: 0)

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

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):