Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal Two Point Zero Two

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
const objLiteral = { a: () => console.log('A'), b: () => console.log('B'), c: () => 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:

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'd be happy to explain the provided benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Description**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches for selecting an object property: using a `switch` statement versus an object literal with bracket notation (`objLiteral[str]`). The benchmark is designed to measure which approach performs better in terms of execution speed.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Switch Statement**: This approach uses a `switch` statement to determine which case to execute based on the value of the variable `str`. The `case` statements log a message to the console, and the `break` keyword is used to exit the switch block.
2. **Object Literal with Bracket Notation**: This approach uses an object literal (`objLiteral`) and bracket notation (`objLiteral[str]`) to dynamically select a property from the object based on the value of `str`. The expression `objLiteral[str]()` logs a message to the console.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Switch Statement**:
	* Pros: Can be more readable and maintainable for simple cases, as it explicitly states which case to execute.
	* Cons: May have overhead due to the number of cases and the need for explicit `break` statements.
2. **Object Literal with Bracket Notation**:
	* Pros: More concise and can be faster due to the elimination of the need for multiple `case` statements.
	* Cons: Can be less readable and maintainable, especially for complex object literals.

In general, the switch statement approach may have higher overhead due to the explicit case statements, while the object literal with bracket notation approach can be more concise but also potentially slower due to the additional lookups required.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

There is no library being used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that `console.log()` is a global function that allows logging messages to the console. In modern JavaScript, you might prefer using `console.info()` or other logging functions for more control over output.

No special JavaScript features are being tested or compared in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to these approaches, you could also consider:

* Using a lookup table: Instead of using a switch statement or bracket notation, you could create a lookup table with the possible values and their corresponding functions.
* Using a dynamic function invocation: You could use a library like `lodash` to dynamically invoke a function based on the value of `str`.
* Using a more modern approach: With the advent of JavaScript 17, you might consider using optional chaining (`?.`) or the new `match()` method for more concise and expressive code.

However, these alternatives may not be directly comparable to the switch statement and object literal approaches in terms of performance.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal Two Point Zero Two (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):