Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
my test bench 1
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Switch vs Map vs MAP OBJECT
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Switch
const input = 10; switch(input) { case 1: return true; case 2: return true; case 3: return true; case 4: return true; case 5: return true; case 6: return true; case 7: return true; case 8: return true; case 9: return true; case 10: return true; }
Map
const input = 10; const LUT = { 0: true, 1: true, 2: true, 3: true, 4: true, 5: true, 6: true, 7: true, 8: true, 9: true, 10: true } LUT[input];
MAP OBJECT
const input = 10; const LUT = new Map([ [0, true], [1, true], [2, true], [3, true], [4, true], [5, true], [6, true], [7, true], [8, true], [9, true], [10, true], ]) LUT.get(input);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Switch
Map
MAP OBJECT
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark JSON and explore what's being tested, compared, and their pros/cons. **Benchmark Definition** The `Script Preparation Code` is empty, which means that no setup or initialization code is required for each test case. The `Html Preparation Code` is also empty, indicating that no HTML-specific preparation is needed. **Individual Test Cases** There are three test cases: 1. **Switch** 2. **Map** 3. **MAP OBJECT** These test cases aim to measure the performance of different approaches to achieve a specific outcome: determining whether the input value matches one of the predefined values in a lookup table (LUT). **Approaches Compared** * **Switch Statement**: The first approach uses an `if-else` switch statement to determine whether the input value matches any of the defined cases. * **Map**: The second approach uses a `const Map` data structure to store the LUT and then retrieves the value using the `LUT[input]` syntax. * **MAP OBJECT** (using `Map.prototype.get()`) : The third approach creates a new `Map` instance with predefined key-value pairs and then uses the `get()` method to retrieve the value. **Pros and Cons** * **Switch Statement**: + Pros: Simple, straightforward implementation; good for small lookups. + Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of evaluating multiple conditions. * **Map**: + Pros: Fast lookups using hash-based data structure; easy to maintain LUTs. + Cons: Requires more memory and may have slower initialization times compared to switch statements. * **MAP OBJECT** (using `Map.prototype.get()`): + Pros: Similar performance benefits as the Map approach; easier to implement for large LUTs. + Cons: May incur additional overhead due to method call and potential caching issues. **Library and Purpose** In all three test cases, no external libraries are used. However, if a custom library were required for optimization or specific use cases, it might include optimized implementations of `Map` or other data structures. The `Map.prototype.get()` method is part of the ECMAScript standard, which means that this approach should be supported by most modern browsers and JavaScript engines without additional libraries. **Special JS Features** No special JavaScript features are used in these test cases. The focus is on comparing the performance of basic control flow constructs (switch statement) and data structures (Map). **Other Alternatives** Some alternative approaches to achieve similar results could include: * Using `Object.values()` or `Object.entries()` with a custom callback function. * Implementing a custom hash table using bitwise operations. * Utilizing SIMD instructions for parallel processing of lookups. However, these alternatives may not be as straightforward or efficient as the tested approaches and might require additional implementation effort.
Related benchmarks:
Testerinho
Friday
Tenary vs dictionary
Nested tenary vs dictionary
list includes vs set has
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?