Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal Performance Check case 40

Script Preparation code:

var str = Math.floor(Math.random() * 40) + 1

Tests:

switch case
switch (str) { case 1: console.log('A'); break; case 2: console.log('B'); break; case 3: console.log('C'); break; case 4: console.log('C'); break; case 5: console.log('A'); break; case 6: console.log('B'); break; case 7: console.log('C'); break; case 8: console.log('C'); break; case 9: console.log('A'); break; case 10: console.log('B'); break; case 11: console.log('C'); break; case 12: console.log('C'); break; case 13: console.log('C'); break; case 14: console.log('C'); break; case 15: console.log('A'); break; case 16: console.log('B'); break; case 17: console.log('C'); break; case 18: console.log('C'); break; case 19: console.log('A'); break; case 20: console.log('B'); break; case 21: console.log('C'); break; case 22: console.log('C'); break; case 23: console.log('A'); break; case 24: console.log('B'); break; case 25: console.log('C'); break; case 26: console.log('C'); break; case 27: console.log('A'); break; case 28: console.log('B'); break; case 29: console.log('C'); break; case 30: console.log('C'); break; case 31: console.log('C'); break; case 32: console.log('C'); break; case 33: console.log('A'); break; case 34: console.log('B'); break; case 35: console.log('C'); break; case 36: console.log('C'); break; case 37: console.log('A'); break; case 38: console.log('B'); break; case 39: console.log('C'); break; case 40: console.log('C'); break; }
object literal
var objLiteral = { 1: function () { console.log('A'); }, 2: function () { console.log('B'); }, 3: function () { console.log('C'); }, 4: function () { console.log('A'); }, 5: function () { console.log('B'); }, 6: function () { console.log('C'); }, 7: function () { console.log('A'); }, 8: function () { console.log('B'); }, 9: function () { console.log('C'); }, 10: function () { console.log('C'); }, 11: function () { console.log('C'); }, 12: function () { console.log('C'); }, 13: function () { console.log('C'); }, 14: function () { console.log('C'); }, 15: function () { console.log('C'); }, 16: function () { console.log('C'); }, 17: function () { console.log('C'); }, 18: function () { console.log('C'); }, 19: function () { console.log('C'); }, 20: function () { console.log('C'); }, 21: function () { console.log('C'); }, 22: function () { console.log('C'); }, 23: function () { console.log('C'); }, 24: function () { console.log('C'); }, 25: function () { console.log('C'); }, 26: function () { console.log('C'); }, 27: function () { console.log('C'); }, 28: function () { console.log('C'); }, 29: function () { console.log('C'); }, 30: function () { console.log('C'); }, 31: function () { console.log('C'); }, 32: function () { console.log('C'); }, 33: function () { console.log('C'); }, 34: function () { console.log('C'); }, 35: function () { console.log('C'); }, 36: function () { console.log('C'); }, 37: function () { console.log('C'); }, 38: function () { console.log('C'); }, 39: function () { console.log('C'); }, 40: function () { console.log('C'); }, }; objLiteral[str]();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
switch case
object literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/103.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 103 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
switch case	147454.8 Ops/sec
object literal	146470.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

To answer this question, I would need to know the specific details about the code that is being executed in the context of these benchmark results.

However, based on the information provided, it appears that there are two test cases:

1. "switch case" - This suggests a test case for a switch statement or a similar construct.
2. "object literal " - This suggests a test case for creating an object literal, which is an object defined with key-value pairs.

The benchmark results show the execution time per second for each test case. In this case, the execution times are:

* "switch case": 147454.8125 executions/second
* "object literal ": 146470.921875 executions/second

Based on the code snippet provided earlier, it appears that the object literal is being used to define a switch statement with multiple cases. The `objLiteral[str]` syntax suggests that the string value will be used as a key in the object literal.

To answer the question, I would need more information about the specific requirements or constraints of the code that is being executed. However, based on the provided benchmark results, it appears that creating an object literal with a large number of cases (in this case, 40) may be slower than executing a switch statement with multiple cases.

If you could provide more context or clarify what the question is asking, I would be happy to try and assist further.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal Performance Check case 40 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Object Literal

Comparing performance of: switch case vs object literal

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

switch case

object literal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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