Benchmark: my test bench 1 - MeasureThat.net

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 = { 0: true, 1: true, 2: true, 3: true, 4: true, 5: true, 6: true, 7: true, 8: true, 9: true, 10: true } LUT[input];
MAP OBJECT
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
MAP OBJECT

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 break down the provided benchmark JSON and explore what's being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Script Preparation Code` is empty, which means that no setup or initialization code is required for each test case. The `Html Preparation Code` is also empty, indicating that no HTML-specific preparation is needed.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **Switch**
2. **Map**
3. **MAP OBJECT**

These test cases aim to measure the performance of different approaches to achieve a specific outcome: determining whether the input value matches one of the predefined values in a lookup table (LUT).

**Approaches Compared**

* **Switch Statement**: The first approach uses an `if-else` switch statement to determine whether the input value matches any of the defined cases.
* **Map**: The second approach uses a `const Map` data structure to store the LUT and then retrieves the value using the `LUT[input]` syntax.
* **MAP OBJECT** (using `Map.prototype.get()`) : The third approach creates a new `Map` instance with predefined key-value pairs and then uses the `get()` method to retrieve the value.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Switch Statement**:
	+ Pros: Simple, straightforward implementation; good for small lookups.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of evaluating multiple conditions.
* **Map**:
	+ Pros: Fast lookups using hash-based data structure; easy to maintain LUTs.
	+ Cons: Requires more memory and may have slower initialization times compared to switch statements.
* **MAP OBJECT** (using `Map.prototype.get()`):
	+ Pros: Similar performance benefits as the Map approach; easier to implement for large LUTs.
	+ Cons: May incur additional overhead due to method call and potential caching issues.

**Library and Purpose**

In all three test cases, no external libraries are used. However, if a custom library were required for optimization or specific use cases, it might include optimized implementations of `Map` or other data structures.

The `Map.prototype.get()` method is part of the ECMAScript standard, which means that this approach should be supported by most modern browsers and JavaScript engines without additional libraries.

**Special JS Features**

No special JavaScript features are used in these test cases. The focus is on comparing the performance of basic control flow constructs (switch statement) and data structures (Map).

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to achieve similar results could include:

* Using `Object.values()` or `Object.entries()` with a custom callback function.
* Implementing a custom hash table using bitwise operations.
* Utilizing SIMD instructions for parallel processing of lookups.

However, these alternatives may not be as straightforward or efficient as the tested approaches and might require additional implementation effort.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/101.0.4951.54 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 101 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Switch	1131236736.0 Ops/sec
Map	1128072832.0 Ops/sec
MAP OBJECT	1222973.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

my test bench 1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Map vs MAP OBJECT

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Switch

Map

MAP OBJECT

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):