Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal - testing with simpler data

Script Preparation code:

var animal = "dog"

Tests:

Switch
function test(animal) { switch(animal){ case 'cat': return 'Kitten' case 'cattle': return 'Calf' case 'cheetah': return 'Cub' case 'dog': return 'Pup' default: return "I don't know that" } } console.log(test(animal))
Object Literal
function test(animal) { var babyAnimal = { cat:'Kitten', cattle:'Calf', cheetah:'Cub', dog:'Pup' } return babyAnimal[animal] ?? "I don't know that" } console.log(test(animal))

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 gemma2:9b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark tests the performance of two different ways to determine the baby name for an animal: using a `switch` statement or an object literal.

**Options Compared:**

1. **`switch` statement:** This is a traditional control flow mechanism that evaluates an expression and compares it to a series of `case` values. If a match is found, the corresponding code block is executed.
2. **Object Literal:**  This approach uses a JavaScript object where the keys are animal names and the values are the corresponding baby names.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **`switch`:**
    * **Pros:** Can be more readable for simple cases with few options.
    * **Cons:**  Can become less readable and harder to maintain as the number of `case` statements grows. Performance can be slightly worse than object literals in some scenarios.

* **Object Literal:**
    * **Pros:** More concise and scalable for larger datasets.  Generally performs better than `switch` statements, especially with many cases.
    * **Cons:** Can be less intuitive for simple cases if the object structure isn't immediately clear.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives to consider:

* **Maps:** JavaScript Maps offer a key-value storage mechanism similar to objects but can be more performant in some scenarios, especially with dynamic key additions and lookups.
* **Lookup Tables (Arrays):**  For smaller datasets, you could use an array of pre-defined pairs (animal, baby name) and iterate through it to find the match.

**Additional Considerations:**

This benchmark measures execution speed, but other factors might influence your choice:

* **Readability and Maintainability:**  Choose the approach that is easiest for you and others to understand and modify in the long term.
* **Dataset Size:** For large datasets, object literals or Maps are generally more efficient.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Android 11; Mobile; rv:102.0) Gecko/102.0 Firefox/102.0

Browser/OS: Firefox Mobile 102 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Switch	47939.3 Ops/sec
Object Literal	43926.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal - testing with simpler data (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Object Literal

Created: 2 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 gemma2:9b, generated 27 days ago):