Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal by wj v1

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'abc';
str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 3));

function A() {
  console.log('A');
}

function B() {
  console.log('B');
}

function C() {
  console.log('C');
}

Tests:

Switch
var act; switch (str) { case 'a': act = A; break; case 'b': act = B; break; case 'c': act = C; break; } act();
Object Literal
var objLiteral = { a: A, b: B, c: C } objLiteral[str]();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Switch
Object Literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases for a benchmarking tool called MeasureThat.net. The tests are designed to compare the performance of two approaches:

1. **Switch statement**: This test case uses a traditional `switch` statement to determine which function to execute based on the value of a variable (`str`).
2. **Object literal**: This test case uses an object literal syntax to map values to functions.

**Options compared**

The two approaches are being compared in terms of their execution speed, with the goal of determining which one is faster.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

* **Switch statement**:
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and expressive than object literals.
		- Can be more efficient for small number of cases (as it avoids the overhead of creating an object).
	+ Cons:
		- Can be less readable for complex logic or a large number of cases.
		- May not be as flexible as object literals for dynamic case logic.
* **Object literal**:
	+ Pros:
		- More flexible and reusable than switch statements (can be easily extended with new cases).
		- Can provide a clear and concise way to express complex logic or multiple paths.
	+ Cons:
		- May incur additional overhead due to object creation and property access.

**Library usage**

The test case uses the `charAt` method, which is a part of the JavaScript standard library. This method returns the character at the specified index in a string.

**Special JS feature/syntax (none mentioned)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmarking example.

**Other alternatives**

For comparison purposes, other approaches could include:

* Using an array or a `Map` object to map values to functions
* Utilizing a lookup table or a hash table for faster lookups
* Implementing the switch statement using an algorithm like the "switch" from C++ (using a jump table)

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be exactly equivalent to the original switch statement and object literal approaches, but they could provide comparable performance profiles.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/75.0.3770.100 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 75 on Mac OS X 10.14.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Switch	122294.7 Ops/sec
Object Literal	93033.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal by wj v1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Object Literal

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Switch

Object Literal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):