Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal 24r34rf3rr

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Switch
switch (getChar()) { case 'a': console.log('A'); break; case 'b': console.log('B'); break; case 'c': console.log('C'); break; }
Object Literal Pre-existing
objLiteral[getChar()]();
Object Literal new
({ a: function() { console.log('A'); }, b: function() { console.log('B'); }, c: function() { console.log('C'); } })[getChar()]();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Switch
Object Literal Pre-existing
Object Literal new

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.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on the MeasureThat.net website. The benchmark tests two approaches to handle a dynamic case statement:

1.  **Switch Statement**: This approach uses a traditional `switch` statement with a variable that determines which case to execute.
2.  **Object Literal**: Two variations of this approach are tested:
    *   **Object Literal Pre-existing (objLiteral)**: The object literal is created and passed as an argument, where the corresponding function is called based on the randomly generated character.
    *   **Object Literal new (new objLiteral)**: A new instance of the object literal is created each time, similar to the previous approach, but with a different syntax.

**Options being compared**

The three approaches are compared in terms of performance. The benchmark measures the number of executions per second for each approach on a specific JavaScript engine (Chrome 102).

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1.  **Switch Statement**
    *   Pros:
        *   Typically faster due to its optimized execution mechanism.
        *   Easy to read and maintain, especially for simple cases.
    *   Cons:
        *   May not perform well with large numbers of cases or dynamic conditions.

2.  **Object Literal Pre-existing (objLiteral)**
    *   Pros:
        *   Can be more flexible when dealing with complex logic or multiple scenarios.
    *   Cons:
        *   May have performance overhead due to function calls and object lookup.
        *   Less readable for complex cases, especially without proper comments.

3.  **Object Literal new (new objLiteral)**
    *   Pros:
        *   Similar flexibility as the previous approach but with a different syntax.
    *   Cons:
        *   Performance may be similar to the `switch` statement due to object creation and lookup costs.

**Library and purpose**

The provided benchmark does not use any external libraries. However, the `console.log` function is used throughout the code snippets, which is a built-in JavaScript console API for logging output during execution.

**Special JS features or syntax**

The benchmark uses:

*   The `Math.random()` function to generate random numbers.
*   A simple string concatenation (`var str = 'abc';`) for variable initialization.

These are standard JavaScript features and do not require special knowledge beyond basic programming concepts.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives or inspiration, consider the following:

*   Other microbenchmarking tools like BenchmarkJS or MicroBenchmark.
*   The `switch` statement in other languages (e.g., C++, Rust) compared to its JavaScript equivalent.
*   Object literal-based approaches with different programming languages (e.g., Python's `dict`) and syntax.

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these approaches can be significant, especially for complex use cases.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal 24r34rf3rr (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Object Literal Pre-existing vs Object Literal new

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Switch

Object Literal Pre-existing

Object Literal new

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):