Benchmark: no 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(6);
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(6);
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(6);

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 benchmarks!

The provided JSON represents a benchmarking test created on MeasureThat.net, which allows users to compare the performance of different approaches in JavaScript. The test consists of three individual test cases: "switch case", "bounce pattern", and "ternary".

**Benchmark Definition**

The overall benchmark definition is not explicitly stated in the provided JSON, but based on the individual test cases, we can infer that it's a comparison of the three approaches:

1. **Switch Case**: Using a traditional `switch` statement to determine which string to return.
2. **Bounce Pattern**: Using an array-like object with multiple `if` statements to determine which string to return.
3. **Ternary**: Using the ternary operator (`?`) to concisely express the same logic as the other two approaches.

**Options being compared**

The three options are:

1. **Switch Case**: A traditional `switch` statement.
2. **Bounce Pattern**: An array-like object with multiple `if` statements.
3. **Ternary**: The ternary operator (`?`) used for conditional expressions.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **Switch Case**:
	+ Pros: Simple, easy to understand, and well-supported by most JavaScript engines.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than other approaches due to the overhead of branch prediction and cache misses.
* **Bounce Pattern**:
	+ Pros: Allows for a single loop iteration and can be optimized with caching or other techniques.
	+ Cons: Less intuitive than traditional `switch` statements, and its syntax can make it harder to read and maintain.
* **Ternary**:
	+ Pros: Concise and easy to read, making it an attractive option for simple logic.
	+ Cons: Can lead to longer execution times due to the creation of a temporary string object.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library usage. However, some libraries like `Lodash` or `Underscore.js` might be used to implement optimized versions of these approaches (e.g., using ` _.map()` for the bounce pattern).

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax explicitly mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

Some alternative approaches that could be explored in this benchmark include:

* **Object literal**: Using an object with a single property to determine which string to return.
* **Array methods**: Utilizing array methods like `map()` and `reduce()` for more concise logic.
* **Regular expressions**: Leveraging regular expressions to simplify the logic.

**Conclusion**

In conclusion, this benchmark provides a useful comparison of three different approaches in JavaScript: traditional `switch` statements, bounce patterns, and ternary operators. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, developers can make informed decisions when choosing the best method for their specific use cases.

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/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
switch case	20315.4 Ops/sec
bounce patttern	20222.3 Ops/sec
ternary	20511.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

no 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):