Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal - Single function creation

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'abc';
str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 3));

Tests:

Switch
const test = (option) => { switch (option) { case 'a': return 'A'; case 'b': return 'B'; case 'c': return 'C'; } } console.log(test(str));
Object Literal
const test = (option) => { var objLiteral = { a: 'A', b: 'B', c: 'C', } return objLiteral[option]; } console.log(test(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!

The provided benchmark definition and test cases are designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using a `switch` statement versus an object literal.

**What is being tested?**

In the script preparation code, a random string (`str`) is generated. This string will be used as input for both benchmarks. The test cases then create functions that take this string as an argument and return a specific value based on the input.

For the `Switch` benchmark, the function uses a `switch` statement to determine which value to return based on the input string. For the `Object Literal` benchmark, the function uses an object literal to map the input string to a specific value.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Switch statement**: This approach uses a conditional statement to check the input string and returns a specific value.
2. **Object Literal**: This approach uses an object literal to map the input string to a specific value.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

**Switch Statement:**

Pros:

* Simple and easy to understand
* Can be faster for small datasets

Cons:

* Can be slower for large datasets due to the overhead of multiple branch predictions
* May require more memory allocations if the number of cases is high

**Object Literal:**

Pros:

* Can be faster for large datasets due to the ability to cache results in a hash table
* Requires less memory allocations compared to switch statements

Cons:

* More complex and harder to understand, especially for those without experience with object literals
* May not perform well if the number of cases is very high or if the input data is not uniformly distributed

**Library usage:**

The test case uses a library called `console`. This is a built-in JavaScript library that provides logging functionality.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code only utilizes standard JavaScript constructs, such as functions, variables, and conditional statements.

**Other alternatives:**

If you were to implement this benchmark yourself, other alternatives for the `Switch` statement could include:

* **Array-based approach**: Instead of using a traditional switch statement, you could use an array to store the values to be returned. This would allow for faster lookups but may require more memory allocations.
* **Object-based approach with multiple dispatch**: You could create an object that uses multiple dispatch (a technique where an object's behavior is determined by its type) to determine which value to return.

For the `Object Literal` approach, you could consider using a different data structure, such as a Trie or a hash table, to store the mappings.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches would require significant changes to the code and may not necessarily provide better performance.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal - Single function creation (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):