The provided benchmark examines the performance of two different implementations of a function that determines the type of navigation event on a webpage using the performance.getEntriesByType('navigation') API. This API provides information about navigation events, such as whether the user navigated to the page for the first time, reloaded it, or navigated forwards/backwards in the page history.

Test Cases Overview

1. Actual Test Case:

   • Benchmark Definition:

     var type = performance.getEntriesByType('navigation')[0].type;
     var navigationType = function(type) {
         if (type === 'navigate') {
             page_view_navigate = 1;
             return '0';
         } else if (type === 'reload') {
             page_view_reload = 1;
             return '1';
         } else if (type === 'back_forward') {
             page_view_back_forward = 1;
             return '2';
         } else {
             return '255'; // Unknown type
         }
     };
     var page_reload = navigationType(type);
     

   • Description: This implementation uses an if-else chain to check the navigation type. It has side effects by incrementing counters for page views based on the navigation type.

2. Futuro Test Case:

   • Benchmark Definition:

     var getNavigationType = function () {
         var type = performance.getEntriesByType('navigation')[0].type;
         switch (type) {
             case 'navigate':
                 return { pageViewNavigate: 1, value: '0' };
             case 'reload':
                 return { pageViewReload: 1, value: '1' };
             case 'back_forward':
                 return { pageViewBackForward: 1, value: '2' };
             default:
                 return { value: '255' }; // Unknown type
         }
     };
     

   • Description: This implementation relies on a switch statement to identify the navigation type and returns an object encapsulating both the type and a corresponding value.

Comparison of Approaches

Pros and Cons

1. Actual (If-Else) Implementation:

   • Pros:
     • Straightforward and easy to understand for simple conditions.
     • May perform slightly better with fewer branches for a small number of checks.
   • Cons:
     • Harder to extend if new navigation types are introduced, requiring additional conditional statements.
     • Side effects (incrementing counters) can lead to bugs if the function is called multiple times without resetting the counters.

2. Futuro (Switch) Implementation:

   • Pros:
     • More organized when dealing with multiple conditions; easier to read and extend.
     • Returns an object, which provides a clear structure for potential expansion or additional details.
   • Cons:
     • Could be perceived as more complex due to object creation and switching logic, which might slightly impact performance in extremely performance-critical scenarios.

Performance Results Analysis

• Both implementations were tested in Chrome 131 on a Windows desktop.
• The futuro test case achieved approximately 1640675.75 executions per second, while the actual test case was significantly faster, with 131832984.0 executions per second.
• The performance difference suggests that the if-else chain might be more optimized in this scenario, perhaps due to the smaller overhead relative to object creation in the switch case.

Other Considerations and Alternatives

• Performance Issues: It's essential to note that performance can be highly context-dependent. Depending on browser optimizations and the specific usage pattern in an actual application, differences in performance may vary.

• Libraries: This benchmark does not utilize any external libraries; rather, it leverages native browser APIs provided by the JavaScript environment.

• Alternatives:

  • Instead of using a direct function call, developers could use mapping strategies (e.g., a lookup table) to determine navigation types more efficiently.
  • Additionally, for modern applications, leveraging frameworks (like React or Vue) would involve different performance considerations due to state management and rendering optimizations.

In conclusion, when developing performance-sensitive features, it's critical to vertically benchmark different approaches, as nuances in implementation can lead to significant differences in execution speed and maintainability.