Benchmark: jmfSpeedTest2 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

const contentType = 'text/plain'

Tests:

switchCase
const contentTypes = ['application/json', 'application/xml', 'text/xml', 'text/plain', 'application/session-v1+json', 'badData']; const randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * contentTypes.length); const contentType = contentTypes[randomIndex]; 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 console.log('not one of the correct values') }
nestedIf
const contentTypes = ['application/json', 'application/xml', 'text/xml', 'text/plain', 'application/session-v1+json', 'badData']; const randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * contentTypes.length); const contentType = contentTypes[randomIndex]; 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 console.log('not one of the correct values') }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

Test name	Executions per second
switchCase	1959911.5 Ops/sec
nestedIf	1934365.0 Ops/sec

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 is being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Test**

The benchmark test is designed to compare the performance of two different approaches:

1. **Switch Statement**: The first approach uses a switch statement with multiple cases to determine the content type.
2. **Nested If Statement**: The second approach uses nested if statements to achieve the same result as the switch statement.

**Switch Statement (switchCase)**

The switch statement is tested against various content types, including:

* `application/json`
* `application/xml`
* `text/xml`
* `text/plain`
* `application/session-v1+json`

The switch statement uses the `includes()` method to check if the content type includes a specific string. The benefits of this approach are:

Pros:

* Readability and maintainability, as it clearly expresses the intent of the code.
* Efficient lookup using the `includes()` method.

Cons:

* May not be suitable for very large numbers of cases, as it can lead to performance issues due to the overhead of checking multiple strings.

**Nested If Statement (nestedIf)**

The nested if statement uses a more traditional approach with multiple levels of indentation. The benefits of this approach are:

Pros:

* Can handle an arbitrary number of cases without significant performance impact.
* May be more suitable for very large numbers of cases, as the overhead of checking individual strings is less.

Cons:

* Readability and maintainability can suffer due to excessive indentation.
* Less efficient lookup compared to the switch statement using `includes()`.

**Library and Special Features**

The benchmark code does not use any libraries or special JavaScript features that are worth mentioning. However, it's worth noting that the `includes()` method is a modern feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), which provides efficient string matching capabilities.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternative approaches to compare performance could include:

* **Array.prototype.includes() with array iteration**: Instead of using the `includes()` method, the code could use array iteration to check if the content type is present in an array.
* **Regex-based approach**: The code could use regular expressions (regex) to match against multiple patterns. This approach would require more complex regex patterns but could offer better performance for very large numbers of cases.
* **Object-based approach**: Instead of using a switch statement or nested if statements, the code could use object-based comparisons with properties and values.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches would likely have varying levels of complexity, readability, and maintainability, making them suitable for different use cases and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

jmfSpeedTest2 (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

switchCase

nestedIf

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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