Benchmark: Switch vs Map object strings

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; default: return "11"; }
Map
const input = 10; const mapping = new Map([ ["0", true], ["1", true], ["2", true], ["3", true], ["4", true], ["5", true], ["6", true], ["7", true], ["8", true], ["9", true], ["10", true], ]); const foo = mapping.get(10);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Switch
Map

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 two individual test cases for a JavaScript benchmarking tool, MeasureThat.net. The test cases are designed to compare the performance of two approaches: switch statements and Map objects.

In the first test case ("Switch"), a simple switch statement is used to check if an input string matches one of several predefined values. In the second test case ("Map"), a Map object is used with the `get()` method to achieve the same result.

**Options compared**

The two approaches are being compared in terms of their execution speed and efficiency. The goal is to determine which approach is faster and more suitable for similar use cases.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Switch statements:**
	+ Pros:
		- Easy to understand and implement, especially for simple cases.
		- Can be more efficient than Map objects in certain scenarios (e.g., when the number of cases is small).
	+ Cons:
		- Can lead to long chain of `case` statements, making it harder to maintain and extend.
		- May not perform well with a large number of cases or dynamic values.
* **Map objects:**
	+ Pros:
		- Flexible and efficient for lookups, especially when dealing with a large number of cases or dynamic values.
		- Allows for easy addition or removal of cases without modifying the code.
	+ Cons:
		- May require more overhead due to the Map object's internal implementation.
		- Can be less intuitive for beginners or those unfamiliar with Maps.

**Library and its purpose**

In both test cases, the `Map` library is used to store a mapping between input values (strings) and boolean outcomes. The `get()` method of the Map object is then used to retrieve the outcome for a given input value.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None mentioned in this specific benchmark.

**Other considerations**

When choosing between switch statements and Map objects, consider the following factors:

* Number of cases: If there are only a few cases, a switch statement might be sufficient. For more cases, a Map object is likely a better choice.
* Dynamic values: If input values can change dynamically, a Map object provides more flexibility than a switch statement.
* Readability and maintainability: Choose the approach that makes your code easier to read and understand.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives for implementing similar functionality include:

* Using an array or object with object shorthand (`{ [input]: true }`) to achieve a similar lookup performance as Map objects.
* Utilizing libraries like Lodash's `_.get()` method, which provides a more functional programming-style approach to handling lookups.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Map object strings (version: 0)

Switch statements vs Map.get using strings

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Map

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Switch

Map

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):