Benchmark: dictionary vs tenary

Tests:

dictionary
const dic = { "Free": "무료취소", "ExceptionalFree": "무료취소", "Total": "취소 및 환불불가", "Ratio": "취소수수료 N%", "Fixed": "취소수수료 N%" } console.log(dic.Free.replace("N", "10")) console.log(dic.ExceptionalFree.replace("N", "10")) console.log(dic.Total.replace("N", "10")) console.log(dic.Ratio.replace("N", "10")) console.log(dic.Fixed.replace("N", "10"))
tenary
const get = (type) => type === "Free" || type === "ExceptionalFree" ? '무료취소' : type === "Total" ? '취소 및 환불불가' : type === "Ratio" || type === "Fixed" ? `취소수수료 10%` : '' console.log(get("Free")) console.log(get("ExceptionalFree")) console.log(get("Total")) console.log(get("Ratio")) console.log(get("Fixed"))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
dictionary
tenary

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches: dictionary-based lookup (using JavaScript objects) and ternary operator-based lookup (also known as conditional expressions or single-line if-else statements).

**Dictionary-Based Lookup**

In this approach, a JavaScript object `dic` is defined with key-value pairs. The script then logs the values of specific keys (`Free`, `ExceptionalFree`, `Total`, `Ratio`, and `Fixed`) by using the `replace()` method with a hardcoded value `"N"`.

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement
* Fast lookups since object property access is O(1)
* No need for explicit conditional checks

Cons:

* Hardcoded values can lead to magic numbers, making the code less readable
* Not flexible if additional keys or values are added in the future

**Ternary Operator-Based Lookup**

In this approach, a single-line ternary operator expression is used to determine the value of each key. The script logs the results by calling the `get()` function with specific key values.

Pros:

* More concise and readable than dictionary-based lookup
* Easy to add or remove keys without modifying the underlying logic
* Can handle cases where additional conditions are needed

Cons:

* Ternary operators can be less readable for complex expressions
* Requires careful consideration of condition order and precedence

**Library Usage**

None of the provided benchmark code uses any external libraries.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark code uses a feature called "raw string literals" (indicated by the `r` prefix in the JSON definition). This allows for more readable and concise multi-line strings. Additionally, the `replace()` method is used, which can be considered a built-in JavaScript function. No special syntax or features are required to run this benchmark.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches could include:

1. **Function-based lookup**: Instead of using dictionary-based or ternary operator-based lookups, functions could be defined for each key-value pair, allowing for more modular and reusable code.
2. **Switch statement-based lookup**: Similar to the ternary operator approach, a switch statement could be used to determine the value of each key.
3. **Regex-based lookup**: Regular expressions (regex) could be used to match specific patterns in the key values, providing more flexibility but potentially at the cost of performance.

These alternative approaches would require modifications to the benchmark code and might not provide significant benefits or drawbacks compared to the dictionary-based and ternary operator approaches.

Related benchmarks:

dictionary vs tenary (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: dictionary vs tenary

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

dictionary

tenary

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):