Benchmark: Nathan's Switch vs Object Literal Test

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; 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; }
Object Literal
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'); } } 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

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the details of this JavaScript benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmarking test created on MeasureThat.net, comparing the performance of two approaches: a traditional `switch` statement and an object literal syntax to dynamically select a function to call. The test is designed to measure the execution speed of these two alternatives.

**Test Case 1: Switch Statement**

In this test case, a random character is selected from the string "abc" using `Math.floor(Math.random() * 3)`. The resulting character is then used as a value in a traditional `switch` statement. The `switch` statement has multiple cases, each with a corresponding function to call and log to the console.

**Pros of Traditional Switch Statement:**

1. **Readability**: The code is straightforward and easy to understand, making it a good choice for simple switch statements.
2. **Performance**: Traditional switch statements are generally faster than object literal syntax because they can use jump tables under the hood, which reduces overhead.

**Cons of Traditional Switch Statement:**

1. **Limited flexibility**: Traditional switch statements are less flexible than object literal syntax, as they require explicit case values and cannot handle dynamic or unknown cases.
2. **Maintenance**: If the number of cases in a traditional switch statement grows large, it can become harder to maintain and update.

**Test Case 2: Object Literal Syntax**

In this test case, an object literal is created with functions corresponding to each character ('a' to 'i'). The selected character from the random string is used as a key to access the corresponding function in the object literal. This function is then called and logged to the console.

**Pros of Object Literal Syntax:**

1. **Flexibility**: Object literal syntax allows for dynamic or unknown cases, making it easier to add new features or handle unexpected input.
2. **Readability**: The code is concise and easy to read, especially when compared to traditional switch statements with multiple cases.

**Cons of Object Literal Syntax:**

1. **Performance**: Object literal syntax can be slower than traditional switch statements because JavaScript has to perform a property lookup using the object's `hasOwnProperty` method or `in` operator.
2. **Overhead**: Object literals require more memory and overhead compared to traditional switch statements.

**Comparison**

The two test cases aim to compare the performance of these two approaches. The benchmark result shows that Chrome 88, running on a Mac OS X 11.1.0 device, executed the `switch` statement approximately 1.2 times faster than the object literal syntax (53394.65234375 executions per second vs 45015.05859375 executions per second).

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to make a similar comparison for other JavaScript features or libraries, here are some alternatives:

* For dynamic typing and flexibility: `Array.prototype.includes()` or `String.prototype.includes()`
* For concurrency and parallel execution: Web Workers
* For caching and memoization: LRU Cache libraries (e.g., `lodash.memoize`)
* For data structures and algorithmic complexity analysis: Libraries like `js-perf` or ` benchmark-js`

In conclusion, the choice between traditional switch statements and object literal syntax depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and code maintainability needs. MeasureThat.net's benchmark helps to provide a fair comparison of these two alternatives.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 11_1_0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.96 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Mac OS X 11.1.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Switch	53394.7 Ops/sec
Object Literal	45015.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Nathan's Switch vs Object Literal Test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Object Literal

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Switch

Object Literal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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