Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal largerestbest

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'q';


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');
  },
};

const switchtest = (str) => {
  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;
}
}

Tests:

Switch
switchtest(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:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/26.0.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 26 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Switch	2265802.2 Ops/sec
Object Literal	2260851.8 Ops/sec

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 is tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark consists of two test cases: "Switch" and "Object Literal". The first test case uses a `switch` statement with a string literal as the condition, while the second test case uses an object literal with a function property accessed using the bracket notation (`objLiteral[str]()`).

**What is tested?**

In both test cases, we have the same input value: `"q"`. The difference lies in how this value is used to determine which branch of the `switch` statement or function property to execute.

**Options compared**

We have two options being compared:

1. **Switch**: This option uses a traditional `switch` statement with multiple cases, where each case checks if the input value matches a specific string literal.
2. **Object Literal**: This option uses an object literal with a function property accessed using the bracket notation (`objLiteral[str]()`). The input value is used as a key to access the corresponding function.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

### Switch

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement, especially for simple cases.
* Can be more efficient if the number of cases is small.

Cons:

* May not be as efficient for large numbers of cases or when dealing with dynamic values.
* Can lead to code bloat if there are many cases.

### Object Literal

Pros:

* Can be more concise and elegant, especially when dealing with complex data structures.
* Can be more efficient than traditional `switch` statements for large numbers of cases.

Cons:

* May require more advanced understanding of JavaScript syntax and semantics.
* Can lead to errors if not used carefully (e.g., accessing the wrong property).

**Library**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library being used. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines or browsers might provide optimizations or features that could affect the performance of these two approaches.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. Both options rely on standard JavaScript constructs.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to these two approaches, here are a few:

* For simple cases, you might consider using a `lookup` table or an array of functions with indices as keys.
* For more complex data structures, you could explore using data-driven programming techniques like functional programming or reactive programming.

Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on the specific requirements and constraints of your use case.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal largerestbest (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

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):