Benchmark: Object lookup vs switch

Script Preparation code:

var levels = [10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60];
var level = levels[Math.floor(Math.random() * levels.length)];

Tests:

Switch
switch (level) { case 10: return "trace"; case 20: return "debug"; case 40: return "warn"; case 50: return "error"; case 60: return "critical"; default: return "info"; }
Object lookup
var mapping = { 10: "trace", 20: "debug", 30: "info", 40: "warn", 50: "error", 60: "critical", }; return mapping[level] || mapping[30];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Switch
Object lookup

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 its results.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using a `switch` statement versus using an object lookup.

**Approaches Compared**

1. **Switch Statement**: The first approach uses a traditional `switch` statement with multiple cases to determine which string to return based on the value of the `level` variable.
2. **Object Lookup**: The second approach uses an object literal (`mapping`) to store the mapping between levels and their corresponding strings.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

*   **Switch Statement:**
    *   Pros:
        *   Can be more readable for simple cases with few possible values.
        *   Does not require creating an object or lookup table beforehand.
    *   Cons:
        *   Can be slower due to the overhead of parsing and executing multiple cases.
        *   Not suitable for large numbers of possible values, as it can become cumbersome and error-prone.
*   **Object Lookup:**
    *   Pros:
        *   Generally faster than a switch statement, especially with large numbers of possible values.
        *   Can be more efficient in terms of memory usage, as the object does not need to be created or parsed beforehand.
    *   Cons:
        *   Requires creating an object or lookup table beforehand, which can add overhead.
        *   May require additional code to handle cases where the level is not found in the mapping.

**Library/Util**

None of the provided benchmark definition's code uses a library. However, there are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned either.

**Other Alternatives**

1.  **Array Lookup**: You can use an array lookup instead of object lookup by creating an array of string values and using the `level` as an index to access the corresponding value.
2.  **Regex Pattern Matching**: Another alternative is to use regular expression pattern matching for both approaches.

**Code Adjustments**

Adjustments would be needed to test these alternatives in a similar way, while preserving the integrity of the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Object lookup vs switch (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Object lookup

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Switch

Object lookup

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):