Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal w/out console.log 3

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'abcdef';
str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 6));
function fn1() {return 'one'};
function fn2() {return 'two'};
function fn3() {return 'three'};
var objLiteral = {
  a: fn1,
  b: fn2,
  c: fn3,
  d: fn1,
  e: fn2,
  f: fn3
};
function switchFn(s) {
  switch (s) {
    case 'a': return fn1();
    case 'b': return fn2();
    case 'c': return fn3();
    case 'd': return fn1();
    case 'e': return fn2();
    case 'f': return fn3();
  }
}

Tests:

Switch
switchFn(str);
Object Literal
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.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using a `switch` statement and an object literal with bracket notation to access functions.

**Switch vs Object Literal without console.log 3**

The test case "Switch vs Object Literal w/out console.log 3" uses a simple string manipulation scenario:

1. A random character is selected from the string `'abcdef'`.
2. Three functions (`fn1`, `fn2`, and `fn3`) are defined, each returning a different string.
3. An object literal `objLiteral` is created with the three functions as its properties, where the property names match the first two characters of the selected random character.

The benchmark tests the performance of two approaches:

**Approach 1: Switch Statement**

The `switchFn(s)` function uses a `switch` statement to access the corresponding function based on the value of the `s` variable. The `case` statements are evaluated in order until one matches, and the associated function is called.

```javascript
function switchFn(s) {
    switch (s) {
        case 'a': return fn1();
        case 'b': return fn2();
        case 'c': return fn3();
        case 'd': return fn1();
        case 'e': return fn2();
        case 'f': return fn3();
    }
}
```

**Approach 2: Object Literal with Bracket Notation**

The object literal `objLiteral` is used to access the corresponding function based on the value of the `s` variable. The syntax `[objLiteral[str]][0]` is used, where `[0]` is the index of the first element in the array returned by `objLiteral[str]`.

```javascript
var objLiteral = {
    a: fn1,
    b: fn2,
    c: fn3,
    d: fn1,
    e: fn2,
    f: fn3
};

// ...
```

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Switch Statement:**

Pros:

* Can be more readable and maintainable for small sets of cases.
* Does not require creating an object literal or indexing into it.

Cons:

* Can be slower due to the overhead of evaluating `case` statements.
* May not perform as well for large sets of cases.

**Object Literal with Bracket Notation:**

Pros:

* Can be more concise and expressive, especially for larger datasets.
* Does not require using a `switch` statement or creating an object literal.

Cons:

* Requires creating an object literal, which can be slower to parse.
* May not perform as well due to the indexing operation `[0]`.

**Library: `Math.random()`**

The `Math.random()` function is used to generate a random character from the string `'abcdef'`. This library provides a simple way to generate random numbers.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches that could be used for this benchmark include:

* Using `if` statements instead of a `switch` statement.
* Using an array with a `find` method to access the corresponding function.
* Using a library like Lodash's `get` function to access the corresponding value.

These alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs in terms of readability and maintainability.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal w/out console.log 3 (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):