Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Jump table vs switch case
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
switch case vs jump table
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
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
let jumpTable = ["rah", "lah", "sah", "blah"]; for(let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { for(let j = 0; jumpTable[j] != "blah"; j++) { } }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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):
Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark and the options being compared. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is comparing two approaches to handle different cases: Jump Table vs Switch Case. **Options Being Compared** 1. **Switch Case**: This approach uses the `switch` statement with multiple `case` statements to determine which branch to execute. 2. **Jump Table**: This approach uses an array (jump table) to map values to their corresponding branches. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** ### Switch Case Pros: * Easy to understand and implement, especially for simple cases. * Can be optimized using techniques like "switch-case with jump tables" or "goto-free switch". Cons: * Slow performance due to the overhead of parsing and executing multiple `case` statements. * May lead to slower performance if the number of cases is large. ### Jump Table Pros: * Fast performance since it relies on array lookups, which are typically faster than function calls or jumps. Cons: * Can be harder to understand and implement, especially for complex cases. * May require additional memory for the jump table. **Library Usage** In this benchmark, the `switch` statement is a built-in JavaScript feature. No libraries are used. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. **Other Considerations** When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors: * Code readability and maintainability: Switch case might be easier to understand for simple cases. * Performance: Jump table is likely to outperform switch case due to its faster lookup times. * Complexity: If you have a large number of cases, jump table might be more suitable. **Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following: * **Arrays and Array Methods**: You can use arrays to map values to their corresponding branches, which could potentially outperform both switch case and jump table. * **Computed Properties**: In modern JavaScript, you can define computed properties on objects using the `get` method, which might provide a performance boost over traditional switch cases. * **Native WebAssembly (WASM)**: If you're targeting specific hardware or have control over the execution environment, you might consider using WASM to execute optimized bytecode for your use case. Keep in mind that the best approach depends on the specific requirements of your project and the characteristics of your data.
Related benchmarks:
Jump vs switch case v2
switch case vs jump table vs bounce pattern vs ternary
Jump vs switch case vs else if for non-integers
Jump table vs switch case
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?