Benchmark: if-else vs switch helper 4

Tests:

Switch case
const role = "parent"; switch (role) { case "child": console.log("child"); break; case "parent": console.log("parent"); break; case "family": console.log("family"); break; }
if-else
const role = "parent"; if (role == "child") { console.log("child"); return; } if (role == "parent") { console.log("parent") return; } if (role == "family") { console.log("family") return; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Switch case
if-else

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Switch case	223506.3 Ops/sec
if-else	228678.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript control flow statements, such as `if-else` and `switch`, is crucial for understanding how different approaches impact application performance.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two benchmark cases:

1. **Switch case**: This test evaluates the performance of a `switch` statement with multiple cases. The switch statement checks the value of the `role` variable against various constants and executes code accordingly.
2. **If-else**: This test assesses the performance of an `if-else` chain, where multiple `if` statements are connected to check different conditions and execute code based on the results.

**Options being compared**

In this benchmark, two approaches are being compared:

1. **Switch statement**
2. **If-else chain**

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

*   **Switch statement:**
    *   Pros:
        *   Can be more efficient for multiple values
        *   Reduces the number of comparisons required
        *   Can be faster due to cache-friendly memory access
    *   Cons:
        *   May require more code maintenance and updates when adding new cases
        *   May not be as flexible for dynamic or runtime-added conditions
*   **If-else chain:**
    *   Pros:
        *   Flexible and adaptable to changing requirements
        *   Can handle dynamic or runtime-added conditions
        *   Easier to understand and maintain code
    *   Cons:
        *   May be slower due to multiple comparisons required
        *   More prone to errors and complexity

**Library usage:**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's likely that the benchmark uses a JavaScript engine or runtime environment that provides some level of optimization for control flow statements.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided examples. Both `switch` and `if-else` are standard control flow constructs in JavaScript.

**Other alternatives:**

For similar benchmarks, you might consider comparing other control flow structures, such as:

*   **Loops**: e.g., `for`, `while`, `do-while`
*   **Functions**: e.g., recursive vs. iterative implementations
*   **Object-oriented programming**: e.g., method calls, property accesses

Keep in mind that the choice of benchmark cases and alternatives depends on the specific use case and performance characteristics you're trying to evaluate.

When preparing benchmarks, consider factors such as:

*   **Input size and distribution**
*   **Hardware and software configurations**
*   **Algorithmic complexity**
*   **Cache locality and memory access patterns**

By carefully selecting benchmark cases and alternatives, you can create a robust and meaningful comparison of control flow performance.

Related benchmarks:

if-else vs switch helper 4 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch case vs if-else

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Switch case

if-else

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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