Benchmark: Switch vs javascript map

Tests:

Switch
const input = 10; switch(input) { case 1: return true; case 2: return true; case 3: return true; case 4: return true; case 5: return true; case 6: return true; case 7: return true; case 8: return true; case 9: return true; case 10: return true; }
Map
const input = 10; const LUT = new Map([ [0, true], [1, true], [2, true], [3, true], [4, true], [5, true], [6, true], [7, true], [8, true], [9, true], [10, true] ]) LUT.get(input)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Switch
Map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 115 on Mac OS X 10.13

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Switch	341637856.0 Ops/sec
Map	210449.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is tested, the pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark consists of two test cases: `Switch` and `Map`. The script preparation code and HTML preparation code are empty, which means that no additional setup or HTML rendering is required for these tests.

**Test Cases**

1. **Switch**
The benchmark definition contains a `switch` statement with 10 cases, where each case returns `true`. The input value is set to `10`, which will not match any of the cases and will fall through to the default case (or undefined behavior).

In this test case, we're comparing the performance of JavaScript's built-in `switch` statement.

2. **Map**
The benchmark definition creates a new instance of `Map` with 11 entries (0-10) mapping to `true`. The test then uses the `get()` method on the `Map` object with an input value of `10`, which will return `true`.

In this test case, we're comparing the performance of JavaScript's built-in `Map` data structure.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is testing two options:

1. **Switch**: The traditional JavaScript `switch` statement.
2. **Map**: A specific implementation of a Map data structure using the `get()` method.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Switch**:
	* Pros: Simple, efficient, and widely supported in JavaScript engines.
	* Cons: Can be slower for large number of cases due to the overhead of the `switch` statement.
2. **Map**:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and scalable data structure for key-value pairs.
	* Cons: Requires more memory and has additional overhead compared to a traditional `switch` statement.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark does not account for caching or memoization of the `switch` statement results. In practice, the result of a `switch` statement might be cached to avoid repeated evaluations.
* The `Map` data structure is used here as an example of a key-value pair implementation, but there are other map-like data structures available in JavaScript, such as `Object` or `SparseArray`.
* The benchmark assumes that the input value will always match one of the cases in the `switch` statement. In practice, you might want to add additional logic to handle unknown inputs.

**Libraries and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, there are no external libraries used, but the use of the `Map` data structure implies knowledge of JavaScript's built-in data structures.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these tests.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs javascript map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Map

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Switch

Map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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