Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal ncoen97

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'abc';
str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 3));

Tests:

Switch
function objLiteral(str){ switch (str) { case 'a': return 'A'; break; case 'b': return 'B'; break; case 'c': return 'C'; break; } } console.log(objLiteral(str));
Object Literal
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

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 JSON and benchmark preparation code to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON defines two benchmark tests:

1. **Switch**: This test measures the performance of using a `switch` statement to determine which string value to return based on a randomly generated string.
2. **Object Literal**: This test measures the performance of using an object literal (an object created with curly brackets) to access a property by its key.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code for both tests is identical:

```javascript
var str = 'abc';
str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 3));
```

This code generates a random string (`'a'`, `'b'`, or `'c'`) and assigns it to the `str` variable. This will be used as input for both tests.

**Html Preparation Code**

The html preparation code is empty, which means that no HTML-related setup is required for these tests.

**Test Cases**

Each test case has two parts:

1. **Benchmark Definition**: This defines the JavaScript function or syntax to be tested.
2. **Test Name**: The name of the test case (e.g., "Switch" or "Object Literal").

For both tests, we have a common input variable `str` that is generated by the script preparation code.

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

**Switch**

Pros:

* Familiar syntax for many developers
* Easy to understand and maintain

Cons:

* Can be slower than object literals due to the overhead of the `switch` statement (e.g., branching, jump table)
* May not perform well with large numbers of cases

**Object Literal**

Pros:

* Often faster than `switch` statements due to the use of a hash table (object literal) for lookup
* Can handle large numbers of cases without significant performance degradation

Cons:

* Requires more memory (object creation) and can be less intuitive for developers who are not familiar with object literals
* May have slower initialization times compared to `switch` statements

**Other Considerations**

* **Memory Usage**: The object literal approach may require more memory due to the creation of an object, which could impact performance in low-memory environments.
* **Branch Prediction**: Modern CPUs often use branch prediction techniques to optimize instruction execution. In this case, the switch statement's branching behavior might not be perfectly predictable for all browsers and hardware configurations.

**Alternative Approaches**

Some alternative approaches that are not explicitly tested on MeasureThat.net include:

* Using a `lookup table` or an array of string values to map to their corresponding values.
* Utilizing a `map()` function or other iteration methods to perform the lookup.
* Employing a hybrid approach combining elements from both `switch` statements and object literals.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may have different performance characteristics, trade-offs, and use cases, which could affect their suitability for specific scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal ncoen97 (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 llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):