Benchmark: Return result from Switch vs Object Literal A-Z

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'abc';
str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 3));

var count = 10;

Tests:

Switch
function getValue(str, count) { switch (str) { case 'a': return 'A'.repeat(count); case 'b': return 'B'.repeat(count); case 'c': return 'C'.repeat(count); case 'd': return 'D'.repeat(count); case 'e': return 'E'.repeat(count); case 'f': return 'F'.repeat(count); case 'g': return 'G'.repeat(count); case 'h': return 'H'.repeat(count); case 'i': return 'I'.repeat(count); case 'j': return 'J'.repeat(count); case 'k': return 'K'.repeat(count); case 'l': return 'L'.repeat(count); case 'm': return 'M'.repeat(count); case 'n': return 'N'.repeat(count); case 'o': return 'O'.repeat(count); case 'p': return 'P'.repeat(count); case 'q': return 'Q'.repeat(count); case 'r': return 'R'.repeat(count); case 's': return 'S'.repeat(count); case 't': return 'T'.repeat(count); case 'u': return 'U'.repeat(count); case 'v': return 'V'.repeat(count); case 'w': return 'W'.repeat(count); case 'x': return 'X'.repeat(count); case 'y': return 'Y'.repeat(count); case 'z': return 'Z'.repeat(count); } } var result = getValue(str, count); console.log(result);
Object Literal
var objLiteral = { 'a': () => 'A'.repeat(count), 'b': () => 'B'.repeat(count), 'c': () => 'C'.repeat(count), 'd': () => 'D'.repeat(count), 'e': () => 'E'.repeat(count), 'f': () => 'F'.repeat(count), 'g': () => 'G'.repeat(count), 'h': () => 'H'.repeat(count), 'i': () => 'I'.repeat(count), 'j': () => 'J'.repeat(count), 'k': () => 'K'.repeat(count), 'l': () => 'L'.repeat(count), 'm': () => 'M'.repeat(count), 'n': () => 'N'.repeat(count), 'o': () => 'O'.repeat(count), 'p': () => 'P'.repeat(count), 'q': () => 'Q'.repeat(count), 'r': () => 'R'.repeat(count), 's': () => 'S'.repeat(count), 't': () => 'T'.repeat(count), 'u': () => 'U'.repeat(count), 'v': () => 'V'.repeat(count), 'w': () => 'W'.repeat(count), 'x': () => 'X'.repeat(count), 'y': () => 'Y'.repeat(count), 'z': () => 'Z'.repeat(count) } var result = objLiteral[str](); console.log(result);

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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two approaches to return a result from a switch statement: using a traditional `switch` statement with multiple cases, and using an object literal with dynamic property access.

**Switch vs Object Literal A-Z**

The script preparation code generates a random string of uppercase letters (e.g., "abc", "cde", etc.) and assigns it to the variable `str`. The script then calls a function named `getValue` that takes two parameters: `str` and `count`.

In the `getValue` function, a traditional `switch` statement is used to return a repeated string based on the value of `str`. For example, if `str` is "a", the function returns "A".repeat(count).

**Object Literal**

In the second approach, an object literal is used instead of a traditional `switch` statement. The object literal has uppercase letters as property names and functions that return repeated strings as values. When the script accesses a property on this object using dynamic property access (e.g., `objLiteral[str]()`), it returns the corresponding repeated string.

**Pros and Cons**

**Traditional Switch Statement:**

Pros:

* Easy to read and understand
* Compile-time checks can help catch errors

Cons:

* Can be slower due to the need for a table lookup
* More verbose in modern JavaScript due to `const` and `let`

**Object Literal with Dynamic Property Access:**

Pros:

* Faster since it avoids the overhead of a table lookup
* Less verbose compared to traditional switch statements

Cons:

* Can be less readable due to the use of dynamic property access
* May require more maintenance if the object literals need to change frequently

**Library and Purpose (None)**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, JavaScript engines like V8 (used by Chrome) and SpiderMonkey (used by Firefox) have their own optimizations and caching mechanisms for switch statements.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special features or syntax, such as async/await, Promises, or Web Workers.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to traditional switch statements and object literals include:

* Using `Object.keys()` and `Array.prototype.map()` to iterate over an array of objects:
```javascript
function getValue(str, count) {
  const keys = Object.keys(objLiteral);
  return keys.find(key => key === str).then(() => objLiteral[key]().repeat(count));
}
```
* Using a switch statement with enums (if supported by the JavaScript engine):
```javascript
enum SwitchCases {
  A,
  B,
  C,
  // ...
}

function getValue(str, count) {
  return switchCases[str];
}
```

Note that the use of enums is not widely supported in JavaScript engines, and their usage may vary across different browsers.

Related benchmarks:

Return result from Switch vs Object Literal A-Z (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Object Literal

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

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):