Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Return result from Switch vs Object Literal A-Z cached
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Switch vs Object Literal
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var str = 'abc'; str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 3)); var count = 10; 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 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) }
Tests:
Switch
var result = getValue(str, count); console.log(result);
Object Literal
var result = objLiteral[str](); console.log(result);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between using a `switch` statement versus an object literal in JavaScript. The script preparation code generates a random string (`str`) that will be used as the key for both approaches. The `getValue` function takes two arguments: `str` and `count`. It returns a repeated string based on the value of `str`. **Options being compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **Switch statement**: Uses the `switch` statement to determine which expression to return. 2. **Object Literal**: Uses an object literal with a property that corresponds to the value of `str`, and calls a function associated with that property. **Pros and Cons of each approach** **Switch Statement** Pros: * Can be faster for simple cases, as it uses a jump table lookup * Often more readable and maintainable Cons: * Can be slower for complex cases, as it involves branching through multiple conditions * May require more memory allocation for the switch table **Object Literal** Pros: * Can be faster for complex cases, as it avoids branching through multiple conditions * Eliminates the need for a switch table Cons: * Can be slower for simple cases, as it involves function call overhead and potential property lookup performance issues * May require more memory allocation for the object literal and associated functions **Other considerations** * The use of `()` after the property names in the object literal suggests that the `() =>` syntax is being used to define anonymous functions. This is a modern JavaScript feature that allows for concise function definitions. * The benchmark does not account for potential caching or memoization effects, which could impact performance. **Library and purpose** In this case, no external library is used. However, if we were to analyze the object literal approach further, we might consider using a library like `lodash` to provide a more efficient implementation of the function lookup. **Special JS feature/syntax** The benchmark uses the modern JavaScript syntax `() =>` to define anonymous functions within the object literal. This syntax is not specific to any particular browser or platform, but it may be less well-supported in older browsers or environments. Overall, this benchmark provides a useful comparison between two approaches to handling string-to-value mappings in JavaScript.
Related benchmarks:
Switch vs Object Literal w/out console.log 4
Switch vs Object Literal value return
Return result from Switch vs Object Literal
Return result from Switch vs Object Literal A-Z
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?