Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal w/out console.log 2

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'abc';
str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 3));
function fn1() {return 'one'};
function fn2() {return 'two'};
function fn3() {return 'three'};

Tests:

Switch
function switchFn(s) { switch (s) { case 'a': return fn1(); case 'b': return fn2(); case 'c': return fn3(); } } switchFn(str);
Object Literal
var objLiteral = { a: fn1, b: fn2, c: fn3 } 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:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that provides information about the test case. Here, there are two test cases:

1. **Switch**: This test case uses a traditional `switch` statement to determine which function to execute based on the value of the variable `s`.
2. **Object Literal**: This test case uses an object literal (a syntax for creating objects in JavaScript) to store references to functions, and then accesses those functions by their keys.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Traditional `switch` statement
* Object literal with function references

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Traditional `switch` statement**:
	* Pros: Easy to understand, widely supported across browsers.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the complexity of the switch statement evaluation process.
2. **Object Literal**:
	* Pros: More concise, can lead to more efficient function lookups, and is often faster due to the way JavaScript engines optimize object property access.
	* Cons: Requires the variable holding the key to exist in scope at runtime, which can be a challenge.

**Library**

There is no explicit library mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some older browsers (pre-ES6) might not support object literals or `switch` statements with default cases.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the ones mentioned above.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, here are a few examples:

* Using a `lookup table`: Instead of using an object literal or a traditional switch statement, you could create a lookup table that maps keys to function indices. This approach is often used in JavaScript engines and can be more efficient.
* Using inline functions: You could define the functions inside the script and use their names as strings to access them. This approach might lead to slightly slower execution due to the overhead of function lookups.
* Using a hash table or array: Instead of using an object literal, you could store the function references in an array or a hash table, which can provide faster lookup times.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as intuitive or widely supported as the traditional `switch` statement and object literals.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal w/out console.log 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Object Literal

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Switch

Object Literal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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