Benchmark: Object Literal vs Switch

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'abc';
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; }
Object Literal
var objLiteral = { a: function() { console.log('A'); }, b: function() { console.log('B'); }, c: function() { console.log('C'); } } objLiteral[str]();
Object Literal 2
var objLiteral = { a: 'A', b: 'B', c: 'C', } console.log(objLiteral[str]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Switch
Object Literal
Object Literal 2

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.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches to access an object literal based on a variable:

1. `switch` statement
2. Object literal with property access (e.g., `objLiteral[str]`)
3. Object literal with function invocation (e.g., `objLiteral[str]()`)

**Switch Statement**

The first approach uses a `switch` statement to determine which branch of the code to execute based on the value of the variable `str`. This is done using the syntax: `switch (str) { ... }`.

Pros:

* Can be more readable and maintainable than object literal-based approaches, especially for simple cases.
* Allows for clear separation of logic into different branches.

Cons:

* May have slower performance due to the overhead of switching between branches.
* Can lead to increased code size and complexity.

**Object Literal with Property Access**

The second approach uses an object literal with property access to dynamically access a specific property. This is done using the syntax: `objLiteral[str]`.

Pros:

* Typically faster than the `switch` statement approach, as it avoids branch switching overhead.
* Can be more concise and easier to read for simple cases.

Cons:

* May not be suitable for complex logic or multiple branches, as it can lead to nested object access patterns.
* Requires careful consideration of property names and data types.

**Object Literal with Function Invocation**

The third approach uses an object literal with function invocation to dynamically execute a specific function. This is done using the syntax: `objLiteral[str]()`.

Pros:

* Can be more concise than the `switch` statement approach, especially for simple functions.
* Allows for clear separation of logic into different functions.

Cons:

* May have slower performance due to the overhead of function invocation and lookup.
* Requires careful consideration of function names and data types.

**Library Considerations**

None of the provided benchmark test cases use any external libraries or frameworks that would impact their performance or behavior.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the provided benchmark test cases explicitly use special JavaScript features or syntax, such as `let`, `const`, or arrow functions. However, it's worth noting that modern browsers and engines may have optimized these features for performance.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to accessing an object literal based on a variable could include:

* Using the bracket notation (`objLiteral[str]`) instead of property access.
* Using a `for...in` loop or a `forEach` method to iterate over the object properties.
* Using a more advanced data structure, such as a Map or an object with dynamic keys.

However, these alternatives are not explicitly tested in this benchmark and may have different performance characteristics depending on the specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Object Literal vs Switch (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Object Literal vs Object Literal 2

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Switch

Object Literal

Object Literal 2

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):