Benchmark: objlit vs map - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var brands = [
"Mastercard",
"Visa",
"AmericanExpress",
"DinersClub",
"Discover",
"JCB",
"UnionPay"
]
var brand = brands[Math.floor(Math.random() * 7)];

Tests:

Object literal
var map = { Mastercard:"Mastercard", Visa:"Visa", AmericanExpress:"American Express", DinersClub: "Diners Club", Discover: "Discover", JCB: "JCB", UnionPay:"UnionPay", } map[brand]
Switch
switch (brand) { case "Mastercard": return "Mastercard"; case "Visa": return "Visa"; case "American Express": return "AmericanExpress"; case "Diners Club": return "DinersClub"; case "Discover": return "Discover"; case "JCB": return "Jcb"; case "UnionPay": return "UnionPay"; default: return "UnknownCard"; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object literal
Switch

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.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on the MeasureThat.net website. The test case is designed to measure the performance difference between two approaches: object literal and switch statement.

**What's being tested?**

The test case creates an array of strings representing different credit card brands, selects a random brand from the array using `Math.random()`, and then uses this selected brand to access a value in a map (object literal) or a series of cases in a switch statement. The goal is to measure which approach is faster.

**Options being compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Object Literal**: Creating an object with the selected brand as a key and assigning its string value.
2. **Switch Statement**: Using a switch statement to match the selected brand against different cases and return its corresponding string value.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Object Literal**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple, concise syntax
		+ Easy to understand and maintain
		+ Fast lookups (average O(1) complexity)
	* Cons:
		+ May lead to slower performance due to the overhead of creating an object reference
2. **Switch Statement**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster for large numbers of cases due to optimized branch prediction
		+ Allows for clear and explicit logic flow
	* Cons:
		+ More complex syntax, which can lead to mistakes or harder maintenance
		+ May have slower performance due to the overhead of case branching

**Library used**

There is no explicitly mentioned library in this test case. However, it's worth noting that using a library like `map` or `Object.keys()` can provide a more convenient and readable way to perform lookups.

**Special JS feature/syntax: None mentioned**

Neither object literal nor switch statement require any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ES6 syntax.

**Other alternatives**

For this specific test case, alternative approaches could include:

1. **Using `in` operator**: Instead of using a map or object literal, you could use the `in` operator to check if the brand is present in an array of strings.
2. **Using regular expressions**: You could use regular expressions to match the selected brand against a pattern, potentially offering faster performance.

However, these alternatives might not be as straightforward or readable as using a map or switch statement.

In summary, the test case is designed to measure the performance difference between two common approaches for accessing values in JavaScript: object literals and switch statements.

Related benchmarks:

objlit vs map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object literal vs Switch

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object literal

Switch

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):