Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal (fixed prep code)

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'abc';
str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 3));

function useSwitch(str) {
    switch (str) {
        case 'a':
            console.log('A');
            break;
        case 'b':
            console.log('B');
            break;
        case 'c':
            console.log('C');
            break;
    }
}

var objLiteral = {
  a: function() {
    console.log('A');
  },
  b: function() {
    console.log('B');
  },
  c: function() {
    console.log('C');
  }
}

Tests:

Switch
useSwitch(str);
Object Literal
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 benchmark definition and options compared in the provided JSON.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. `useSwitch(str);`: This code uses a traditional `switch` statement to check the value of `str`.
2. `objLiteral[str]();`: This code uses an object literal with function references to achieve the same result as the `switch` statement.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches:

1. **Switch Statement**: The traditional `switch` statement checks for a specific value and executes a corresponding branch.
2. **Object Literal with Function References**: This approach uses an object literal to map values to functions, which are then executed based on the input.

**Pros and Cons:**

**Switch Statement:**

Pros:

* Easy to understand and maintain
* Less memory overhead compared to object literals

Cons:

* Can be slower due to the overhead of branches and jump instructions
* Not as flexible as object literals for dynamic value mapping

**Object Literal with Function References:**

Pros:

* More flexible than switch statements, allowing for dynamic value mapping
* Can be faster due to the elimination of branch prediction errors

Cons:

* Less intuitive for some developers, especially those without experience with functional programming concepts
* Can lead to increased memory overhead compared to traditional switch statements

**Library Considerations:**

In this benchmark, there is no library being used explicitly. However, if we consider the `function` keyword in both approaches, we can say that JavaScript's built-in function constructor (`Function()`) is being utilized.

**Special JS Features or Syntax:**

There are a few special features and syntax elements at play here:

* The use of `Math.floor(Math.random() * 3)` to generate a random value for `str`. This is not directly related to the performance comparison but rather serves as a setup for the benchmark.
* The `var` keyword, which is an older way of declaring variables in JavaScript. It's still supported for backward compatibility but has largely been replaced by `let` and `const`.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you were to modify this benchmark, here are some alternative approaches you could consider:

1. **Using a Map instead of Object Literal**: You could use the built-in `Map` data structure in JavaScript to achieve similar performance to object literals.
2. **Using an Array and Indexing**: Instead of using an object literal with function references, you could use an array and indexing to access functions based on an input value.
3. **Multi-Threading or Parallel Execution**: If you wanted to explore parallel execution, you could modify the benchmark to execute multiple instances of both approaches concurrently.

These alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark setup and testing strategy but could provide additional insights into JavaScript performance optimization techniques.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal (fixed prep code) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Object Literal

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

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):