Benchmark: test if vs select case vs includes

Tests:

if
function test(docRecType) { if (docRecType === "File") { return 2 } if (["Attachment", "Ident", "Procedure", "Section", "Step"].includes(docRecType)) { return 3 } if (["Autocomplete", "Category", "FeatureFlag"].includes(docRecType)) { return 4 } if (docRecType === "Event") { return 5 } } test('FeatureFlag')
case
function testB(docRecType) { switch (docRecType) { case "File": return 2 case "Attachment": case "Procedure": case "Ident": case "Section": case "Step": return 3 case "Autocomplete": case "Category": case "FeatureFlag": return 4 case "Event": return 5 default: break } } testB('FeatureFlag')
includes
function testC(docRecType) { return ["Autocomplete", "Category", "FeatureFlag"].includes(docRecType) } testC('FeatureFlag')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
if
case
includes

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.

The provided benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different approaches: `if` statements, `switch` statements, and array `includes()` method.

**What are being compared?**

In each test case:

* The script takes a string parameter `docRecType`.
* The function returns a specific value based on the comparison with predefined strings.
* The values returned in each case differ (2, 3, 4, or 5).

**Options being compared:**

1. **`if` statements**: This is the traditional way of performing conditional checks. Each `if` statement has a separate condition and an associated return value.
2. **`switch` statements**: This approach allows for multiple conditions to be checked in a single block, using the `case` keyword to specify each possible value. In this benchmark, only one case is specified, but it's still a comparison of values.
3. **Array `includes()` method**: Instead of checking if a string matches an individual condition, this approach checks if the input string is included in an array of predefined strings.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **`if` statements**:
	* Pros: Simple, easy to read, and understandable.
	* Cons: Can lead to code duplication (e.g., multiple `if` statements for similar conditions).
2. **`switch` statements**:
	* Pros: Efficient when dealing with many cases, as it avoids repeated checks.
	* Cons: Can be difficult to understand and maintain, especially with complex logic or many cases.
3. **Array `includes()` method**:
	* Pros: Simple and concise, allowing for a single function to handle multiple conditions.
	* Cons: May lead to performance issues if the array is large or the comparison is expensive.

**Library usage:**

None of the provided test cases use any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that modern JavaScript engines often provide optimized implementations of these methods (e.g., `String.prototype.includes()`).

**Special JS features or syntax:**

No special features are used in this benchmark. The code is written in standard JavaScript and follows conventional syntax.

**Other alternatives:**

To further compare the performance of these approaches, additional test cases could be created using other methods, such as:

* Regular expressions (`RegExp.test()`)
* `Array.prototype.some()` or `Array.prototype.every()`
* Caching or memoization techniques
* Looping constructs (e.g., `for` loops)
* Other data structures (e.g., objects with properties)

By exploring different approaches and testing scenarios, you can gain a deeper understanding of the trade-offs involved in choosing the most efficient method for your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

test if vs select case vs includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: if vs case vs includes

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

if

case

includes

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):