Benchmark: function - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

const asd = (type) => {
    switch (type) {
        case "123":
            return console.log("123");
        case "456":
            return console.log("456");
    }
}

asd("123");

Tests:

object approach
const asd = { "123": () => console.log("123"), "456": () => console.log("456") }; asd["123"]();
object approach -- 2
const asd = (type) => { switch (type) { case "123": return console.log("123"); case "456": return console.log("456"); } } asd("123");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
object approach
object approach -- 2

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 gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark compares two ways to execute different code blocks based on a given type:

**Test Case 1: "object approach"**

* **Code:** Defines an object `asd` where keys are strings ("123", "456") and values are functions that log the corresponding string. Then it calls the function associated with the key "123".
* **Pros:**  This method is concise and allows for easy lookup based on the type. It can be efficient if you frequently need to access different functionalities based on a string key. 
* **Cons:** Can become cumbersome if you have many types, leading to a large object.

**Test Case 2: "object approach -- 2"**

* **Code:** Defines an arrow function `asd` that takes a `type` argument and uses a `switch` statement to call different functions based on the `type`. The example demonstrates calling the function for "123".
* **Pros:** More structured than using an object, especially if you have complex logic within each type's execution. 
* **Cons:** Can be slightly more verbose than using an object approach, particularly for simple cases.

**Alternatives:**

* **Maps:**  JavaScript Maps are key-value pairs that offer similar functionality to objects but provide additional features like iterability and methods for working with keys and values.

* **Function Composition:** Instead of directly calling functions based on a type, you could use function composition to chain together functions representing different behaviors. This can promote reusability and modularity.
* **Dynamic Function Invocation:** You could use `eval` or `new Function()` to dynamically create functions based on the type string. However, this approach is generally discouraged due to security risks and performance concerns.

**Key Considerations:**

* **Readability and Maintainability:** Choose the approach that is most readable and maintainable for your specific codebase and team.
* **Performance:** For highly performance-critical scenarios, consider profiling different approaches with your actual workload. Microbenchmarks like this one can provide initial insights, but real-world testing is crucial.

Let me know if you have any more questions!

Related benchmarks:

function (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: object approach vs object approach -- 2

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

object approach

object approach -- 2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):