Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal larger

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvw';
str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 22));


var objLiteral = {
  a: function() {
    console.log('A');
  },
  b: function() {
    console.log('B');
  },
  c: function() {
    console.log('C');
  },
  d: function() {
    console.log('D');
  },
  e: function() {
    console.log('E');
  },
  f: function() {
    console.log('F');
  },
  g: function() {
    console.log('G');
  },
  h: function() {
    console.log('H');
  },
  i: function() {
    console.log('I');
  },
  j: function() {
    console.log('J');
  },
  k: function() {
    console.log('K');
  },
  l: function() {
    console.log('L');
  },
  m: function() {
    console.log('M');
  },
  n: function() {
    console.log('N');
  },
  o: function() {
    console.log('O');
  },
  p: function() {
    console.log('P');
  },
  q: function() {
    console.log('Q');
  },
  r: function() {
    console.log('R');
  },
  s: function() {
    console.log('S');
  },
  t: function() {
    console.log('T');
  },
  u: function() {
    console.log('U');
  },
  v: function() {
    console.log('V');
  },
  w: function() {
    console.log('W');
  },
};

Tests:

Switch
switch (str) { case 'a': console.log('A'); break; case 'b': console.log('B'); break; case 'c': console.log('C'); break;; case 'd': console.log('D'); break;; case 'e': console.log('E'); break;; case 'f': console.log('F'); break;; case 'g': console.log('G'); break;; case 'h': console.log('H'); break;; case 'i': console.log('I'); break;; case 'j': console.log('J'); break;; case 'k': console.log('K'); break;; case 'l': console.log('L'); break;; case 'm': console.log('M'); break;; case 'n': console.log('N'); break;; case 'o': console.log('O'); break;; case 'p': console.log('P'); break;; case 'q': console.log('Q'); break;; case 'r': console.log('R'); break;; case 's': console.log('S'); break;; case 't': console.log('T'); break;; case 'u': console.log('U'); break;; case 'v': console.log('V'); break;; case 'w': console.log('W'); break; }
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.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that describes the test case. In this case, we have two test cases:

1. `Switch vs Object Literal larger`
2. `Switch`

The first test case has a script preparation code that generates a random string `str` with 22 characters, and then assigns it to a variable. It also defines an object literal `objLiteral` with 26 functions, each logging a different character from the string.

**Test Cases**

We have two individual test cases:

1. **Switch**: This test case uses a switch statement to check if the random string `str` matches any of the characters in the object literal. The benchmark definition is:
```javascript
switch (str) {
  case 'a': console.log('A'); break;
  case 'b': console.log('B'); break;
  // ...
}
```
2. **Object Literal**: This test case uses the object literal `objLiteral` to access a function corresponding to the random string `str`. The benchmark definition is:
```javascript
objLiteral[str]();
```

**Comparison**

The comparison being tested is between the performance of using a switch statement versus an object literal to access a function based on a string.

**Pros and Cons**

**Switch Statement:**

Pros:

* Can be faster for certain use cases, as it can skip over cases that don't match.
* Can be more readable in some cases.

Cons:

* May not be as efficient for large numbers of cases, as each case must be checked individually.
* Requires a fixed set of cases to check.

**Object Literal:**

Pros:

* Can be more efficient for large numbers of cases, as the browser can use a lookup table to quickly find the corresponding function.
* Does not require a fixed set of cases to check.

Cons:

* May be slower for small sets of cases, as the browser must perform a lookup.
* Requires a valid property name (in this case, the random string `str`).

**Other Considerations**

In modern JavaScript engines, both approaches are optimized and can achieve similar performance. However, some engines may still favor one approach over the other.

Additionally, if the object literal contains many properties with functions, it's likely that a lookup table will be used by the browser, making the `Object Literal` approach more efficient.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives to consider:

* **Array Methods**: Instead of using a switch statement or an object literal, you could use array methods like `indexOf()` or `findIndex()` to achieve the same result.
* **Regex**: You could also use regular expressions to match the random string against a pattern in the object literal.

However, these alternatives may not be as efficient or readable as the original approaches, and are likely to be used only in specific scenarios where performance is critical.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal larger (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Object Literal

Created: 5 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):