Benchmark: Spread vs if/else vs switch/break

Script Preparation code:

var filters = [{
        name: 'operation',
        value: 'some value'
    },
    {
        name: 'process',
        value: 'some value'
    },
    {
        name: 'notUsed',
        value: 'slkjrklwejr'
    },
    {
        name: 'position',
        value: '2'
    },
    {
        name: 'multiChoise',
        value: [{
            value: 'FOO'
        }, {
            value: 'BAR'
        }]
    },
];

Tests:

Switch + spread
const query = filters.reduce((res, { name, value }) => { switch (name) { case 'position': return { ...res, position: Number(value), }; case 'operation': case 'process': return { ...res, [name]: value, }; case 'multiChoise': return { ...res, multiChoise: value.map(({ value }) => value), }; default: return res; } }, {});
if/else
const strings = ['operation', 'process']; const query = filters.reduce((res, { name, value }) => { if (name === 'position') { res.position = Number(value); } else if (name === 'multiChoise') { res.multiChoise = value.map(({ value }) => value); } else if (strings.includes(name)) { res[name] = value; } return res; }, {});
Switch + break
const query = filters.reduce((res, { name, value }) => { switch (name) { case 'position': res.position = Number(value); break case 'operation': case 'process': res[name] = value; break; case 'multiChoise': res.multiChoise = value.map(({ value }) => value); break; } return res; }, {});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Switch + spread
if/else
Switch + break

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case for comparing the performance of three different approaches to process an array of filters:

1. **Switch with spread**: This approach uses a `switch` statement with the `spread` operator (`...`) to create a new object.
2. **If-else chain**: This approach uses multiple `if` statements chained together to process each filter individually.
3. **Switch with break**: This approach is similar to the first one, but it includes `break` statements after each case.

The benchmark test case uses a predefined array of filters, which includes different types of data (e.g., strings, numbers, arrays). The goal is to measure how quickly each approach can process this data and create a new object.

**Options comparison:**

1. **Switch with spread**:
	* Pros: Efficient use of `switch` statements, leveraging the spread operator for creating a new object.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of `switch` statement execution.
2. **If-else chain**:
	* Pros: Easy to understand and maintain, as each condition is evaluated independently.
	* Cons: Can lead to slower performance due to the number of conditional checks.
3. **Switch with break**:
	* Pros: Similar efficiency to Switch with spread, but with added benefit of `break` statements for early termination.
	* Cons: Less intuitive than Switch with spread or If-else chain.

Other considerations:

* The use of `switch` statements can be slower due to the overhead of lookup and execution. However, when dealing with a fixed number of cases (as in this benchmark), it can still provide efficient results.
* The `spread` operator can create a new object efficiently, but its performance may vary depending on the JavaScript engine used.
* If-else chains can be slower due to the number of conditional checks required.

**Library usage:**

None of the provided benchmark test cases use any external libraries. However, in real-world scenarios, you might encounter libraries that provide similar functionality (e.g., object creation, array processing).

**Special JS features or syntax:**

The benchmark test case uses the following special JavaScript features:

* Spread operator (`...`)
* `switch` statements with multiple cases
* Early termination using `break` statements

These features are part of the ECMAScript standard and are widely supported by modern JavaScript engines.

Alternatives to these approaches might include:

1. **Object.create()**: Instead of creating a new object using `...`, you could use `Object.create()` to create an object with specified properties.
2. **Array.prototype.reduce()**: For processing arrays, you might consider using `Array.prototype.reduce()` instead of loops or other iterative approaches.
3. **Closures**: If you need to maintain state or reuse code across multiple iterations, consider using closures (functions that have access to their own scope).

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide the same performance benefits as the original approach, and it's essential to test them thoroughly for your specific use case.

I hope this explanation helps!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.101 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Switch + spread	902936.1 Ops/sec
if/else	2784943.2 Ops/sec
Switch + break	3389211.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Spread vs if/else vs switch/break (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch + spread vs if/else vs Switch + break

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Switch + spread

if/else

Switch + break

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):