Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Switch vs Object Literal - testing with stable input
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Switch vs Object Literal
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var str = 'c'; // 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]();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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):
This benchmark tests the performance of two different approaches for selecting code based on a variable value: * **`switch` statement:** A classic control flow structure in JavaScript that evaluates an expression and executes the corresponding `case` block if there's a match. * **Object literal with function values:** An object is defined with properties corresponding to each possible value of the variable (`str`). Each property holds a function which prints the corresponding letter. The function associated with the current value of `str` is then called. Let's analyze the pros and cons: **Switch Statement:** * **Pros:** Generally considered faster for simple cases with a limited number of branches due to its optimized implementation in JavaScript engines. Can be more readable for beginners. * **Cons:** Can become less readable and harder to maintain if the number of `case` statements grows significantly. Doesn't handle "fallthrough" gracefully (code execution continues into the next case without `break`) unless explicitly managed. **Object Literal with Functions:** * **Pros:** More flexible for handling complex logic or when you need to associate additional data with each value. Can be more expressive and concise if you have a lot of branches. * **Cons:** Potentially slower than `switch` for simple cases due to the overhead of property lookups and function calls. Can be harder to read for beginners unfamiliar with this pattern. **Other Considerations:** * **Benchmarking Context:** The results on MeasureThat.net might vary depending on your browser, device, and specific JavaScript engine implementation. * **Input Data Distribution:** The benchmark uses a predefined string input ('c'). Real-world scenarios may involve different data distributions that could influence performance. * **Code Optimization:** Both approaches can benefit from further optimization techniques (e.g., caching results or using a more efficient data structure). **Alternatives:** Besides `switch` and object literals, there are other ways to achieve similar functionality: * **Maps:** JavaScript Maps offer a key-value store where you could map values to functions, providing a similar approach to the object literal method. * **Lookup Tables:** For scenarios with a fixed set of values, creating a lookup table (array or hashmap) can provide fast lookups.
Related benchmarks:
Switch vs Object Literal by wj v1
Switch vs Object Literal methods
Switch vs Object Literal (fixed prep code)
Switch vs Object Literal 24r34rf3rr
Switch vs Object Literal value return
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?