Benchmark: object literal vs switch case

Tests:

switch case
function thing(j) { switch(j) { case 0: return "rah"; case 1: return "lah"; case 2: return "sah"; case 3: return "blah"; } } for(let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { for(let j = 0; thing(j) != "blah"; j++) { } }
jump table
const states = { 0: () => 'rah', 1: () => 'lah', 2: () => 'sah', 3: () => 'blah', } for(let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { for(let j = 0; states[j]() != "blah"; j++) { } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
switch case
jump table

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.

I'll break down the benchmark and its options for you.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches: using `switch` statements and using object literals with a jump table (also known as a hash table). The benchmark aims to determine which approach is faster for a specific use case.

**Options Compared**

1. **Switch Statement**: This option uses the traditional `switch` statement to handle different cases.
2. **Object Literal with Jump Table**: This option uses an object literal to map values to functions, and then iterates over the object to execute the corresponding function.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### Switch Statement

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement
* Fast execution in most cases (since it's a simple table-based lookup)

Cons:

* Can be slower for large numbers of cases due to the overhead of branching instructions
* May not be suitable for use cases with many cases or complex logic

### Object Literal with Jump Table

Pros:

* Can be faster than switch statements for large numbers of cases, since it uses a hash table lookup (which is often faster than branch-based lookups)
* Can handle complex logic and multiple conditions more easily

Cons:

* Requires more code and may be harder to understand for some developers
* May not work correctly in older browsers or environments that don't support modern JavaScript features

**Library/Function Used**
The benchmark uses a simple `thing` function, which is defined as:
```javascript
function thing(j) {
  switch (j) {
    case 0:
      return "rah";
    case 1:
      return "lah";
    case 2:
      return "sah";
    case 3:
      return "blah";
  }
}
```
The `thing` function is used as a example of a simple function that takes an argument and returns a value based on the input.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**
This benchmark uses modern JavaScript features such as:

* Arrow functions (`() => 'value'`)
* Template literals (`\r\nconst states = {\r\n\t0: () => 'rah',\r\n\t1: () => 'lah',\r\n\t2: () => 'sah',\t 3: () => 'blah',\r\n}\r\n\r\n`)

**Other Alternatives**
There are other ways to implement a jump table or switch statement, such as:

* Using an array of functions and indexing into it
* Using a `Map` object (which is similar to an object literal but optimized for fast lookups)
* Using a library like Lodash that provides utility functions for working with objects and arrays

Note that the best approach will depend on the specific use case and requirements, and may require additional consideration of factors such as code readability, maintainability, and performance.

Related benchmarks:

object literal vs switch case (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: switch case vs jump table

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

switch case

jump table

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):