Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal value return

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'abc';
str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 3));

AخA
 
var str = 'abc';str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 3));

Tests:

Switch

const getString = (randomString) => {
  switch (randomString) {
    case 'a':
      return 'a';
    case 'b':
      return 'b';
    case 'c':
      return 'c';
    case 'd':
      return 'd';
    case 'e':
      return 'e';
    case 'f':
      return 'f';
    case 'g':
      return 'g';
    case 'h':
      return 'h';
    case 'i':
      return 'i';
    case 'j':
      return 'j';
    default: {
      return 'default';
    }
  }
};

console.log(getString(str));

​x
 
const getString = (randomString) => {  switch (randomString) {    case 'a':      return 'a';    case 'b':      return 'b';    case 'c':      return 'c';    case 'd':      return 'd';    case 'e':      return 'e';    case 'f':      return 'f';    case 'g':      return 'g';    case 'h':      return 'h';    case 'i':      return 'i';    case 'j':      return 'j';    default: {      return 'default';    }  }};​console.log(getString(str));

Object Literal

const objectLiteral = {
  a: 'a',
  b: 'b',
  c: 'c',
  d: 'd',
  e: 'e',
  f: 'f',
  g: 'g',
  h: 'h',
  i: 'i',
  j: 'j',
};

console.log(objectLiteral[str] || 'default');

 
const objectLiteral = {  a: 'a',  b: 'b',  c: 'c',  d: 'd',  e: 'e',  f: 'f',  g: 'g',  h: 'h',  i: 'i',  j: 'j',};​console.log(objectLiteral[str] || 'default');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
Switch
Object Literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Switch	455535.8 Ops/sec
Object Literal	451851.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

Overview

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of two approaches for returning values from an array: using a switch statement versus object literals.

Benchmark Definition

The benchmark definition specifies that users should create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks to measure the performance difference between these two approaches. The script preparation code is provided as a starting point, where a random string str is assigned to the variable, and then its value is modified using charAt() to simulate different cases.

Options Compared

Two options are compared:

Switch: This approach uses a switch statement to evaluate the random string str and return the corresponding value.
Object Literal: This approach uses an object literal (objectLiteral) to store values that correspond to each possible input, and then accesses the desired value using bracket notation (objectLiteral[str] || 'default').

Pros and Cons

Switch

Pros:

Simple and straightforward implementation
Can be easily extended to support more cases

Cons:

May incur higher overhead due to the number of cases evaluated
Can lead to slower performance due to the overhead of evaluating each case

Object Literal

Pros:

Efficient lookup using bracket notation
Can avoid the overhead of evaluating multiple cases

Cons:

Requires a larger upfront investment in terms of code and data structures (object creation)
May be less flexible than switch for handling large numbers of cases

Library/Functionality Used

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. However, Math.random() is used to generate a random string.

Special JavaScript Features/Syntax

The benchmark uses the following special syntax:

Bracket notation ([str]) for accessing object values
Template literals (const objectLiteral = { ... }) for defining an object literal

These features are widely supported in modern JavaScript engines, but may require additional setup or configuration in older browsers.

Alternatives

Other alternatives to consider when returning values from an array include:

Using a Map data structure instead of objects or switch statements
Implementing a custom lookup table using an array and indexing
Utilizing a library like Lodash or Underscore.js for optimized string manipulation and object lookup

Note that the choice of alternative will depend on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of two approaches for returning values from an array: using a `switch` statement versus object literals.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition specifies that users should create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks to measure the performance difference between these two approaches. The script preparation code is provided as a starting point, where a random string `str` is assigned to the variable, and then its value is modified using `charAt()` to simulate different cases.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Switch**: This approach uses a `switch` statement to evaluate the random string `str` and return the corresponding value.
2. **Object Literal**: This approach uses an object literal (`objectLiteral`) to store values that correspond to each possible input, and then accesses the desired value using bracket notation (`objectLiteral[str] || 'default'`).

**Pros and Cons**

### Switch

Pros:

* Simple and straightforward implementation
* Can be easily extended to support more cases

Cons:

* May incur higher overhead due to the number of cases evaluated
* Can lead to slower performance due to the overhead of evaluating each case

### Object Literal

Pros:

* Efficient lookup using bracket notation
* Can avoid the overhead of evaluating multiple cases

Cons:

* Requires a larger upfront investment in terms of code and data structures (object creation)
* May be less flexible than switch for handling large numbers of cases

**Library/Functionality Used**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. However, `Math.random()` is used to generate a random string.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**

The benchmark uses the following special syntax:

* Bracket notation (`[str]`) for accessing object values
* Template literals (`const objectLiteral = { ... }`) for defining an object literal

These features are widely supported in modern JavaScript engines, but may require additional setup or configuration in older browsers.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to consider when returning values from an array include:

* Using a `Map` data structure instead of objects or switch statements
* Implementing a custom lookup table using an array and indexing
* Utilizing a library like Lodash or Underscore.js for optimized string manipulation and object lookup

Note that the choice of alternative will depend on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal value return (version: 0)

return primitive values instead of functions

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Object Literal

Created: 2 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 6 months ago):

Switch

Object Literal