var str = 'abc';
str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 3));
switch (str) {
case 'a': console.log('A'); break;
case 'b': console.log('B'); break;
case 'c': console.log('C'); break;
}
var objLiteral = {
a: function() {
console.log('A');
},
b: function() {
console.log('B');
},
c: function() {
console.log('C');
}
}
objLiteral[str]();
if(str === 'a'){
console.log('a')
}
if(str === 'b'){
console.log('b')
}
if(str === 'c'){
console.log('c')
}
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Switch | |
Object Literal | |
If else |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Switch | 424943.8 Ops/sec |
Object Literal | 407648.0 Ops/sec |
If else | 392364.1 Ops/sec |
Benchmark Overview
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of three different approaches: switch
, object literal
, and if-else
. The benchmark measures the execution time per second for each approach.
Options Compared
str
variable.str
variable.str
variable and execute the corresponding function.Pros and Cons
Library
In this benchmark, the console
object is used as a library. The console.log()
function is used to print output to the console, but it's not explicitly imported or referenced in the code. This is common in web development, where the global console
object is often assumed to be available.
Special JS Features
There are no special JavaScript features mentioned in this benchmark. However, if you're interested in exploring other microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net, some benchmarks may utilize ES6+ features like async/await or arrow functions.
Alternatives
If you're looking for alternative approaches or want to compare the performance of these methods with others, consider the following:
for
or while
) to execute code repeatedly.Keep in mind that the best approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and coding style.