Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Switch vs map test2
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Switch vs Map
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Switch
const input = 10; switch(input) { case 1: return true; case 2: return true; case 3: return true; case 4: return true; case 5: return true; case 6: return true; case 7: return true; case 8: return true; case 9: return true; case 10: return true; }
Map
const input = 10; const LUT = new Map([ [0, true], [1, true], [2, true], [3, true], [4, true], [5, true], [6, true], [7, true], [8, true], [9, true], [10, true], ]); LUT.get(input);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Switch
Map
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):
The provided JSON represents a benchmark test comparing the performance of JavaScript's `switch` statement and `Map` data structure. Here's a breakdown of what each part tests, their pros and cons, and other considerations: **Benchmark Test Cases** 1. **Switch Statement**: The first test case uses a `switch` statement with 10 cases. This is a simple example that demonstrates the basic usage of the `switch` statement. Pros: * Easy to understand and write * Can be used for simple conditional statements Cons: * Can lead to spaghetti code if not carefully designed * May result in slower performance due to branching and indirect jumps **Map Data Structure**: The second test case uses a `Map` data structure to create a lookup table (LUT) with 11 entries. This is a more efficient approach for large datasets. Pros: * Offers faster lookups compared to the `switch` statement * Can handle large amounts of data without significant performance degradation Cons: * Requires more memory allocation and garbage collection * May be overkill for simple use cases like this one **Library and Special JS Features** In both test cases, there is no explicit library used or special JavaScript feature mentioned. However, the `Map` data structure is a built-in JavaScript feature that has been available since ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). **Other Considerations** * The benchmark only measures the performance of the `switch` statement and `Map` data structure without considering other factors like memory usage or CPU utilization. * The test cases are relatively simple, which might not accurately represent real-world scenarios where more complex logic is involved. **Alternatives** Other alternatives to the `switch` statement and `Map` data structure include: * **Object-based approach**: Using objects with property access instead of a `switch` statement or `Map`. * **Array-based approach**: Using arrays with index-based lookups instead of a `Map`. * **Regular expressions**: Using regular expressions for pattern matching, which can be more efficient than a `switch` statement for certain use cases. * **Hash tables**: Implementing custom hash tables using objects or other data structures. In general, the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements of your application, such as performance, memory usage, and ease of maintenance.
Related benchmarks:
Map vs switch soh
map vs ifelse vs switch test
map vs if/else vs switch
Switch vs Object Literal vs If Else vs Map - testing with simpler data again
Switch vs Object Literal vs If Else vs Map - testing with simpler data again again
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?