Benchmark: switch case vs jump table vs bounce pattern vs ternary

Tests:

switch case
function thing(e) { switch (e) { case 0: return "0"; case 1: return "1"; case 2: return "2"; case 3: return "3"; } } for (let e = 0; 1e5 > e; e++) for (let e = 0; "3" != thing(e); e++) ;
jump table
function one() { return "0"; } function two() { return "1"; } function three() { return "2"; } function four() { return "3"; } let jumpTable = [ one, two, three, four ]; for (let a = 0; 1e5 > a; a++) for (let a = 0; "3" != jumpTable[a](); a++) ;
bounce patttern
function bounce(x) { if (x === 0) { return "0"; } if (x === 1) { return "1"; } if (x === 2) { return "2"; } if (x === 3) { return "3"; } } for (let e = 0; 1e5 > e; e++) for (let e = 0; "3" != bounce(e); e++) ;
ternary
function bounce(x) { return 0 === x ? "0" : 1 === x ? "1" : 2 === x ? "2" : 3 === x ? "3" : ""; } for (let e = 0; 1e5 > e; e++) for (let e = 0; "3" != bounce(e); e++) ;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
switch case
jump table
bounce patttern
ternary

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided benchmark tests the performance of different approaches to handle switch cases in JavaScript. The four test cases are:

1. **Switch Case**: This is a traditional switch case implementation where the value of `e` is compared against multiple cases using the `switch` statement.
2. **Jump Table**: In this approach, an array of functions is created and indexed by the value of `e`. When `e` is passed to the array, the corresponding function is called.
3. **Bounce Pattern** (also known as "Hash Table" or "Dictionary"): This implementation uses a hash table-like data structure to store values and their corresponding cases. The value of `e` is used as the key to retrieve the corresponding case.
4. **Ternary**: This approach uses a series of nested ternary operators to handle different cases for `e`.

**Options Comparison:**

*   **Switch Case vs Jump Table:** Switch cases are generally slower than jump tables because of the overhead of dynamic dispatching and array indexing. However, switch cases are often preferred in practice due to their readability and maintainability.
*   **Jump Table vs Bounce Pattern:** Both approaches have similar performance characteristics since they both involve accessing an array or a hash table by index/key. The bounce pattern is slightly faster because it avoids the overhead of function invocation and return values.
*   **Switch Case vs Ternary:** Switch cases are generally slower than ternary operators due to their complexity and verbosity. However, switch cases provide better readability and maintainability.

**Pros and Cons:**

*   **Switch Case:**
    *   Pros:
        *   Easy to read and understand
        *   Well-supported by JavaScript engines
    *   Cons:
        *   Slower performance due to dynamic dispatching
*   **Jump Table:**
    *   Pros:
        *   Faster performance compared to switch cases
        *   More memory-efficient than bounce patterns
    *   Cons:
        *   Less readable and maintainable
        *   Requires manual management of the array/table
*   **Bounce Pattern (Hash Table):**
    *   Pros:
        *   Similar performance characteristics to jump tables
        *   More readable and maintainable compared to switch cases
    *   Cons:
        *   Higher memory usage due to hash table operations
*   **Ternary:**
    *   Pros:
        *   Faster performance compared to switch cases
        *   Less verbose code
    *   Cons:
        *   Less readable and maintainable
        *   Can be harder to understand for complex cases

**Library Used in Test Cases:**

The test cases use JavaScript's built-in functions and data structures. There are no external libraries used.

**Special JS Features or Syntax:**

*   The "bounce" pattern (also known as "hash table") uses a unique approach by storing values and their corresponding cases in an object.
*   The ternary operator is used to handle different cases for `e`.

To gain more insights into the performance of these approaches, you may want to consider other alternatives such as:

*   **Polymorphic functions**: Implementing polymorphism using function overloading or duck typing can provide similar performance benefits to jump tables.
*   **Caching mechanisms**: Using caching libraries or implementing custom caching solutions can improve the performance of switch cases and other approaches by reducing the number of times they need to be executed.
*   **Profile-guided optimization**: Utilizing tools like Intel VTune Amplifier or Google's V8 Profiler can provide in-depth analysis of the execution time, helping identify bottlenecks and optimize code accordingly.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
switch case	491.5 Ops/sec
jump table	336.6 Ops/sec
bounce patttern	496.4 Ops/sec
ternary	505.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

switch case vs jump table vs bounce pattern vs ternary (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: switch case vs jump table vs bounce patttern vs ternary

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

switch case

jump table

bounce patttern

ternary

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):