Benchmark: type coercion, switch case 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"; default: return ""; } } for (let t = 0; 1e5 > t; t++) thing("0"), thing("2"), thing("");
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"; return "" } for (let t = 0; 1e5 > t; t++) bounce("0"), bounce("2"), bounce("");
ternary
function bounce(x) { return 0 === x ? "0" : 1 === x ? "1" : 2 === x ? "2" : 3 === x ? "3" : ""; } for (let t = 0; 1e5 > t; t++) bounce("0"), bounce("2"), bounce("");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
switch case
bounce patttern
ternary

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 23 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 that compares the performance of three different approaches for implementing a simple switch-case statement: the traditional `switch` statement, the "bounce pattern" (also known as the "hash table" approach), and the ternary operator.

**Switch Statement**

The traditional `switch` statement is implemented using a `switch` expression inside an array loop. This implementation uses the `case` labels to determine which value to return for each iteration of the loop.

```javascript
function thing(e) {
  switch (e) {
    case 0:
      return "0";
    case 1:
      return "1";
    case 2:
      return "2";
    case 3:
      return "3";
    default:
      return "";
  }
}
```

**Bounce Pattern**

The "bounce pattern" is a common optimization technique for switch statements. Instead of using multiple `case` labels, it uses an array to store the values and their corresponding results. The function iterates over this array and returns the result for each value.

```javascript
function bounce(x) {
  const values = ["0", "1", "2", "3"];
  const results = ["", "", "", ""];
  for (let i = 0; values[i] !== undefined; i++) {
    if (x === values[i]) return results[i];
  }
}
```

**Ternary Operator**

The ternary operator is a concise way to implement the same logic as the `switch` statement using a single expression.

```javascript
function bounce(x) {
  return 0 === x ? "0" : 1 === x ? "1" : 2 === x ? "2" : 3 === x ? "3" : "";
}
```

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Traditional Switch Statement**: Pros - easy to understand, well-documented. Cons - can be slow due to the overhead of multiple `case` labels.
* **Bounce Pattern**: Pros - optimized for performance, reduces function call overhead. Cons - requires an extra array to store values and results.
* **Ternary Operator**: Pros - concise, eliminates the need for an explicit loop or array. Cons - can be harder to understand for complex logic.

**Library Considerations**

None of the above implementations use any external libraries.

**Special JS Features**

The provided benchmark tests only uses standard JavaScript features. No special features like `async/await`, Web Workers, or Service Workers are used.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to implement a switch statement, here are some options:

1. **Object-based approach**: Instead of using an array, you can use an object to store the values and their corresponding results.
2. **Array methods**: You can use array methods like `map()` or `reduce()` to implement the switch statement.
3. **Generator functions**: Generator functions can be used to create a more elegant implementation of the switch statement.

These alternatives may offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/113.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 113 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
switch case	22564.5 Ops/sec
bounce patttern	22664.0 Ops/sec
ternary	22600.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

type coercion, switch case vs bounce pattern vs ternary (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: switch case vs bounce patttern vs ternary

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

switch case

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 23 days ago):