Benchmark: swich vs hash vs map for string key

Script Preparation code:

var x = 'DELETE';

var hash = {
  'OPTHONS': () => {},
  'GET': () => {},
  'POST': () => {},
  'PUT': () => {},
  'PATCH': () => {},
  'DELETE': () => {}
}

var map = new Map()
map.set('OPTHONS', () => {})
map.set('GET', () => {})
map.set('POST', () => {})
map.set('PUT', () => {})
map.set('PATCH', () => {})
map.set('DELETE', () => {})

Tests:

switch
switch (x) { case 'OPTHONS': break; case 'GET': break; case 'POST': break; case 'PUT': break; case 'PATCH': break; case 'DELETE': break; }
hash
hash[x];
map
map.get(x)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
switch
hash
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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark tests three different approaches to iterate over a string of key-value pairs:

1. `switch` statement
2. Hash table lookup (`hash[x]`)
3. Map iteration (`map.get(x)`)

**Switch Statement (Test Case 1)**

The switch statement is compared to the other two approaches. Here's why:

```javascript
Benchmark Definition: "switch (x) {\r\n  case 'OPTHONS': break;\r\n  case 'GET': break;\r\n  case 'POST': break;\r\n  case 'PUT': break;\r\n  case 'PATCH': break;\r\n  case 'DELETE': break;\r\n}"
```

The switch statement is tested by iterating over the `OPTHONS` array using a traditional switch statement. The browser's execution count per second is recorded.

**Pros and Cons**

Pros:

* Fast and efficient for small to medium-sized data sets
* Easy to understand and maintain

Cons:

* Not suitable for large data sets due to its overhead
* Limited support in older browsers

**Hash Table Lookup (Test Case 2)**

The hash table lookup is compared using the following code:

```javascript
Benchmark Definition: "hash[x];"
```

Here, a simple hash table `hash` with predefined keys and values is used. The browser's execution count per second is recorded.

**Pros and Cons**

Pros:

* Fast for small data sets due to its direct access nature
* Supports large data sets

Cons:

* May have performance issues if the hash table is too large or if collisions occur frequently
* Requires predefined keys and values, which might not be feasible in all scenarios

**Map Iteration (Test Case 3)**

The map iteration is compared using the following code:

```javascript
Benchmark Definition: "map.get(x)"
```

Here, a Map data structure with predefined key-value pairs is used. The browser's execution count per second is recorded.

**Pros and Cons**

Pros:

* Fast for large data sets due to its lazy evaluation nature
* Supports dynamic key-value pairs

Cons:

* May have performance issues if the map is too large or if iteration overhead is significant
* Requires modern browsers that support Map data structure

**Library Used**

No specific library is used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that `Map` and `Object` (not explicitly mentioned) are built-in JavaScript objects.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The `switch` statement and hash table lookup use a feature of JavaScript called "static typing" for the case values. This means that the value on the right side of the assignment operator (`=>`) is used to determine which branch to execute. The map iteration uses a more modern approach, leveraging the built-in Map data structure.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need alternative approaches, here are some options:

1. **Array.prototype.forEach()**: Similar to map iteration but may have performance issues for very large datasets.
2. **Regular Expressions (Regex)**: Can be used as an alternative to switch statements or hash table lookups, depending on the specific use case and desired outcome.
3. **JSON parsing**: For iterating over key-value pairs in a JSON string.

Note that each of these alternatives has its own trade-offs and performance characteristics, which may affect the results of this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

swich vs hash vs map for string key (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: switch vs hash vs map

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

switch

hash

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):