Benchmark: jmfSpeedTest - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

const contentType = 'text/plain'

Tests:

switchCase
const contentType = 'text/plain' const response = 'something' switch (true) { case contentType.includes('application/json'): return response case contentType.includes('application/xml'): case contentType.includes('text/xml') : case contentType.includes('text/plain') : case contentType.includes('application/session-v1+json'): return response default: // Handle other content types or throw an error throw new Error('Unsupported content type: ' + contentType) }
nestedIf
const contentType = 'text/plain' const response = 'something' if (contentType) { if (contentType.includes('application/json')) { return response } else if (contentType.includes('application/xml') || contentType.includes('text/xml') || contentType.includes('text/plain') || contentType.includes('application/session-v1+json')) { return response } // Handle other content types or throw an error throw new Error('Unsupported content type: ' + contentType) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
switchCase
nestedIf

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its details.

**What is tested?**

MeasureThat.net tests the performance difference between using `switch` statements and nested `if` statements in JavaScript to determine if a content type falls under a certain category. The test case provides a script snippet that defines two variables: `contentType` and `response`. The script then uses a conditional statement (either `switch` or `nestedIf`) to check the value of `contentType` against various categories, returning `response` if it matches.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Switch Statement**: The first option uses a traditional `switch` statement with multiple cases to check the content type.
2. **Nested If Statement**: The second option uses nested `if` statements to achieve the same result as the `switch` statement.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

* **Switch Statement**
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and expressive way to handle multiple conditions
		- Can lead to faster execution due to the compiler's ability to optimize switch statements
	+ Cons:
		- May have slower execution time in some cases (e.g., when the number of cases is large)
		- Not as readable for complex or non-obvious condition logic
* **Nested If Statement**
	+ Pros:
		- More flexible and readable way to handle complex condition logic
		- Can be optimized by compilers or JavaScript engines
	+ Cons:
		- May lead to slower execution time due to the need to evaluate each conditional statement sequentially

**Library used**

None is explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definition, but it's likely that this test case assumes a basic understanding of JavaScript and its built-in features.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntax highlighted in the benchmark. It appears to focus solely on the performance difference between two common programming constructs: `switch` statements and nested `if` statements.

**Other alternatives**

Alternative approaches could include:

1. Using a dictionary or object to map content types to corresponding responses.
2. Utilizing regular expressions to match content type patterns.
3. Leveraging other conditional statement constructs, such as `ternary operators` or ` logical OR` chains.

However, these alternatives are not compared in the provided benchmark, and their performance characteristics may vary depending on the specific use case and requirements.

Keep in mind that this is a microbenchmark, focusing on the performance difference between two specific approaches. More comprehensive benchmarks might consider additional factors, such as code readability, maintainability, or scalability.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
switchCase	33973424.0 Ops/sec
nestedIf	33925356.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jmfSpeedTest (version: 0)

which is faster, nested if or switch

Comparing performance of: switchCase vs nestedIf

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

switchCase

nestedIf

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):