Benchmark: 객체와 맵 그리고 스위치

Tests:

switch
switch ("c") { case "a": console.log("a"); break; case "b": console.log("b"); break; case "c": console.log("c"); break; default: console.log("d"); break; }
obj
const obj = { a: 'a', b: 'b', c: 'c', } console.log(obj.c);
map
const map = new Map(); map.set('a', 'a'); map.set('b', 'b'); map.set('c', 'c'); console.log(map.get('c'));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
switch
obj
map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/112.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 112 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
switch	310157.5 Ops/sec
obj	304282.2 Ops/sec
map	280424.4 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided benchmark, MeasureThat.net, is used to measure the performance of JavaScript code on different browsers and platforms. The test cases are designed to evaluate specific aspects of JavaScript programming, such as object manipulation, switch statements, and map data structures.

**Test Cases:**

1. **switch statement**: This test case measures the performance of a simple switch statement with four cases. The code is:
   ```
   switch ("c") {
     case "a":
       console.log("a");
       break;
     case "b":
       console.log("b");
       break;
     case "c":
       console.log("c");
       break;
     default:
       console.log("d");
       break;
   }
   ```
   The pros of this approach are that it is simple and easy to understand. However, the cons are that it may not be efficient due to the overhead of the switch statement.

2. **Object Access**: This test case measures the performance of accessing an object property using dot notation. The code is:
   ```
   const obj = {
     a: 'a',
     b: 'b',
     c: 'c'
   }
   console.log(obj.c);
   ```
   The pros of this approach are that it is simple and easy to understand. However, the cons are that it may not be efficient due to the overhead of object lookups.

3. **Map Data Structure**: This test case measures the performance of adding an element to a Map data structure and then accessing its value using the `get()` method. The code is:
   ```
   const map = new Map()
   map.set('a', 'a')
   map.set('b', 'b')
   map.set('c', 'c')
   console.log(map.get('c'))
   ```
   The pros of this approach are that it provides a way to efficiently store and retrieve data using a hash table. However, the cons are that it may require more memory due to the overhead of creating a new Map object.

**Library:**

* None

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

* None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net supports various JavaScript features and syntax, such as async/await, promises, and modern ECMAScript standards.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives for measuring JavaScript performance include:

1. **Benchmark.js**: A popular benchmarking library for JavaScript that provides a simple API for creating and running benchmarks.
2. **Benchmarker**: A lightweight benchmarking library that allows you to create and run benchmarks with ease.
3. **jsperf**: A web-based benchmarking tool that allows you to compare the performance of different JavaScript implementations.

When choosing an alternative, consider factors such as ease of use, flexibility, and the ability to support modern JavaScript features and syntax.

**Additional Considerations:**

When interpreting the results of a benchmark, consider the following:

1. **Device platform and browser**: The results may vary depending on the device platform and browser being used.
2. **JavaScript engine**: The performance results may also depend on the specific JavaScript engine being used.
3. **Optimization techniques**: Applying optimization techniques, such as minification and compression, can affect the performance results.

By considering these factors and using a reputable benchmarking library, you can ensure that your benchmark results are accurate and reliable.

Related benchmarks:

객체와 맵 그리고 스위치 (version: 0)

객체와 맵 그리고 스위치

Comparing performance of: switch vs obj vs map

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

switch

obj

map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):