Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'abc';
str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 3));

Tests:

Switch
switch (str) { case 'a': console.log('A'); break; case 'b': console.log('B'); break; case 'c': console.log('C'); break; }
Object Literal
var objLiteral = { a: function() { console.log('A'); }, b: function() { console.log('B'); }, c: function() { console.log('C'); } } objLiteral[str]();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Switch
Object Literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/146.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 146 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Switch	442791.3 Ops/sec
Object Literal	385480.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the JavaScript benchmark and its results.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches: using a `switch` statement with string literals, and using an object literal with function expressions.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Switch Statement**: This approach uses a `switch` statement to check which case is executed based on the value of the variable `str`.
2. **Object Literal**: This approach uses an object literal with function expressions to check which function is executed based on the value of the variable `str`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Switch Statement**
	+ Pros:
		- Can be more readable and maintainable, especially for simple cases.
		- Can take advantage of compiler optimizations (e.g., dead code elimination).
	+ Cons:
		- May not perform as well as object literals in JavaScript engines that support dynamic typing.
		- Can lead to slower performance due to the overhead of type checking.
* **Object Literal**
	+ Pros:
		- Can provide better performance, especially in JavaScript engines that support dynamic typing.
		- Can be more flexible and reusable, since functions can be defined once and reused multiple times.
	+ Cons:
		- May require more code and be less readable for simple cases.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

There is no library being used in this benchmark. The special JavaScript feature used is the `Math.random()` function, which generates a random number between 0 (inclusive) and 1 (exclusive).

**Other Alternatives**

Some other alternatives that could have been used to implement these benchmarks include:

* Using regular expressions instead of object literals or switch statements.
* Using `case` statements in an array instead of a switch statement.
* Using JavaScript's built-in `typeof` operator to check the type of the variable.

However, it's worth noting that the benchmark is primarily focused on comparing the performance of these two approaches, rather than exploring alternative implementations.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Object Literal

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Switch

Object Literal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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