Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
jmfSpeedTest
(version: 0)
which is faster, nested if or switch
Comparing performance of:
switchCase vs nestedIf
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
const contentType = 'text/plain'
Tests:
switchCase
const contentType = 'text/plain' const response = 'something' switch (true) { case contentType.includes('application/json'): return response case contentType.includes('application/xml'): case contentType.includes('text/xml') : case contentType.includes('text/plain') : case contentType.includes('application/session-v1+json'): return response default: // Handle other content types or throw an error throw new Error('Unsupported content type: ' + contentType) }
nestedIf
const contentType = 'text/plain' const response = 'something' if (contentType) { if (contentType.includes('application/json')) { return response } else if (contentType.includes('application/xml') || contentType.includes('text/xml') || contentType.includes('text/plain') || contentType.includes('application/session-v1+json')) { return response } // Handle other content types or throw an error throw new Error('Unsupported content type: ' + contentType) }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
switchCase
nestedIf
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 123 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
switchCase
33973424.0 Ops/sec
nestedIf
33925356.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and its details. **What is tested?** MeasureThat.net tests the performance difference between using `switch` statements and nested `if` statements in JavaScript to determine if a content type falls under a certain category. The test case provides a script snippet that defines two variables: `contentType` and `response`. The script then uses a conditional statement (either `switch` or `nestedIf`) to check the value of `contentType` against various categories, returning `response` if it matches. **Options compared** The benchmark compares two approaches: 1. **Switch Statement**: The first option uses a traditional `switch` statement with multiple cases to check the content type. 2. **Nested If Statement**: The second option uses nested `if` statements to achieve the same result as the `switch` statement. **Pros and Cons of each approach** * **Switch Statement** + Pros: - More concise and expressive way to handle multiple conditions - Can lead to faster execution due to the compiler's ability to optimize switch statements + Cons: - May have slower execution time in some cases (e.g., when the number of cases is large) - Not as readable for complex or non-obvious condition logic * **Nested If Statement** + Pros: - More flexible and readable way to handle complex condition logic - Can be optimized by compilers or JavaScript engines + Cons: - May lead to slower execution time due to the need to evaluate each conditional statement sequentially **Library used** None is explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definition, but it's likely that this test case assumes a basic understanding of JavaScript and its built-in features. **Special JS feature or syntax** There are no specific JavaScript features or syntax highlighted in the benchmark. It appears to focus solely on the performance difference between two common programming constructs: `switch` statements and nested `if` statements. **Other alternatives** Alternative approaches could include: 1. Using a dictionary or object to map content types to corresponding responses. 2. Utilizing regular expressions to match content type patterns. 3. Leveraging other conditional statement constructs, such as `ternary operators` or ` logical OR` chains. However, these alternatives are not compared in the provided benchmark, and their performance characteristics may vary depending on the specific use case and requirements. Keep in mind that this is a microbenchmark, focusing on the performance difference between two specific approaches. More comprehensive benchmarks might consider additional factors, such as code readability, maintainability, or scalability.
Related benchmarks:
jQuery 2.2.0 vs Vanilla JS SetText Speed Test
jQuery vs Vanilla JS SetText Speed Test testraw
innerText vs createTextNode
Test remove node performance (with new nodes added)
innerText vs innerHTML vs textContent
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?