Benchmark: Switch vs object mapping

Tests:

object
const mapping = { 0: true, 1: true, 2: true, 3: true, 4: true, 5: true, 6: true, 7: true, 8: true, 9: true, 10: true, }; const foo = mapping[2];
Switch
switch(2) { 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; default: return 11; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
object
Switch

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/142.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/142.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 142 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
object	144808928.0 Ops/sec
Switch	145779424.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll provide an explanation of the benchmark and its test cases, as well as some additional context.

**Benchmark Overview**

The MeasureThat.net benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: object-based mapping and switch statement-based lookup in JavaScript. The benchmark aims to determine which approach is more efficient for a specific use case.

**Test Cases**

There are only two test cases:

1. **"object"`**: This test case uses an object literal (`const mapping = { ... }`) to define a mapping between indices and values. The `foo` variable is then assigned the value of `mapping[2]`. This approach relies on the JavaScript engine's ability to perform lookup operations using objects.
2. **"Switch "`**: This test case uses a switch statement to achieve the same lookup operation as in the "object" test case. The code uses multiple cases to cover various values, and the `foo` variable is assigned the value of `switch(2)`. This approach relies on the JavaScript engine's ability to execute a switch statement.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Object-based mapping**: This approach uses an object literal to define the mapping between indices and values.
2. **Switch statement-based lookup**: This approach uses a switch statement to achieve the same lookup operation as in the "object" test case.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

* **Object-based mapping**:
	+ Pros: Generally more efficient than switch statements, especially for larger datasets.
	+ Cons: Requires an object literal definition, which can be less readable for some developers.
* **Switch statement-based lookup**:
	+ Pros: Can be more readable and concise for small to medium-sized lookup tables.
	+ Cons: Less efficient than object-based mapping for large datasets.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark, but it's likely that the JavaScript engine being tested (e.g., V8) provides built-in support for objects and switch statements.

No special JS feature or syntax is used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines might optimize certain features differently.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives could be explored:

* **Array-based lookup**: Using an array to store the mapping values and indexing into it using `arr[index]`.
* **Map data structure**: Using a `Map` object (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to define the mapping between indices and values.
* **Custom implementation**: Writing a custom JavaScript function or method to perform the lookup operation.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be relevant to this specific benchmark, which focuses on comparing object-based mapping with switch statement-based lookup.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs object mapping (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: object vs Switch

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

object

Switch

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):