Benchmark: Switch vs Object

Script Preparation code:

var icon = 'User';

Tests:

switch
switch (icon) { case 'ArrorUp': icon = ['far', 'chevron-up']; break; case 'ArrorDonw': icon = ['far', 'chevron-down']; break; case 'Camera': icon = ['fas', 'camera']; break; case 'Calendar': icon = ['far', 'calendar-alt']; break; case 'Check': icon = ['far', 'check']; break; case 'Clear': icon = ['far', 'times']; break; case 'Error': icon = ['far', 'exclamation-circle']; break; case 'ExchangeAlt': icon = ['far', 'exchange-alt']; break; case 'Globe': icon = ['far', 'globe']; break; case 'History': icon = ['far', 'history']; break; case 'Info': icon = ['far', 'info-circle']; break; case 'Lock': icon = ['far', 'lock']; break; case 'Pen': icon = ['far', 'pen']; break; case 'Paperclip': icon = ['far', 'paperclip']; break; case 'PlusCircle': icon = ['fas', 'plus-circle']; break; case 'PowerOff': icon = ['far', 'power-off']; break; case 'Search': icon = ['far', 'search']; break; case 'StickyNote': icon = ['far', 'sticky-note']; break; case 'Trash': icon = ['far', 'trash-alt']; break; case 'User': icon = ['fas', 'user-alt']; break; }
Object
var objLiteral = { 'ArrorUp': ['far', 'chevron-up'], 'ArrorDonw': ['far', 'chevron-down'], 'Camera': ['fas', 'camera'], 'Calendar': ['far', 'calendar-alt'], 'Check': ['far', 'check'], 'Clear': ['far', 'times'], 'Error': ['far', 'exclamation-circle'], 'ExchangeAlt': ['far', 'exchange-alt'], 'Globe': ['far', 'globe'], 'History': ['far', 'history'], 'Info': ['far', 'info-circle'], 'Lock': ['far', 'lock'], 'Pen': ['far', 'pen'], 'Paperclip': ['far', 'paperclip'], 'PlusCircle': ['fas', 'plus-circle'], 'PowerOff': ['far', 'power-off'], 'Search': ['far', 'search'], 'StickyNote': ['far', 'sticky-note'], 'Trash': ['far', 'trash-alt'], 'User': ['fas', 'user-alt'], } objLiteral[icon];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
switch
Object

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two test cases: `switch` and `Object`. The script preparation code for both tests is identical, assigning the string `'User'` to a variable named `icon`.

**Test Cases**

#### 1. switch

This test case uses a JavaScript `switch` statement with multiple cases.

```javascript
switch (icon) {
    // ...
}
```

The benchmark definition provides the entire `switch` statement as a single string, which is then executed by MeasureThat.net.

**Library: none**

This test case doesn't use any external libraries.

**Special JS feature: None**

The `switch` statement is a standard JavaScript construct and doesn't rely on any special features or syntax.

**Comparison with Object**

The benchmark compares the performance of the `switch` statement with an equivalent approach using an object literal.

```javascript
var objLiteral = {
    'ArrorUp': ['far', 'chevron-up'],
    'ArrorDonw': ['far', 'chevron-down'],
    // ...
};
objLiteral[icon];
```

**Pros and Cons of switch vs Object**

*   **switch**:
    *   Pros: Generally faster and more efficient, especially for small numbers of cases. The JavaScript engine can optimize the branch prediction and cache accesses.
    *   Cons: Can be slower for large numbers of cases due to the overhead of creating a jump table. Additionally, it may not work well with dynamically generated case values.
*   **Object**:
    *   Pros: Allows for dynamic case values and can be more flexible than `switch` when dealing with unknown or variable-case scenarios. It also avoids some issues related to branch prediction and cache misses in modern CPUs.
    *   Cons: Typically slower than `switch`, as the JavaScript engine needs to perform a string lookup and indexing operation.

**Other Alternatives**

*   **Table-driven approaches**: Instead of using `switch` or an object literal, you could use a table-driven approach with arrays or maps. This can provide better performance for large numbers of cases but may require more code and complex logic.
*   **Runtime-generated switch tables**: If the number of cases is known at runtime, you can generate a jump table dynamically using `switch` statements. However, if the cases are unknown or variable at compile time, this approach may not be feasible.

The benchmark result shows that both approaches have different performance characteristics, with `switch` generally outperforming `Object`. The exact results depend on various factors, including the specific JavaScript engine, CPU architecture, and operating system.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: switch vs Object

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

switch

Object

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):