Benchmark: my test bench 1 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Switch
const input = 10; switch(input) { case 1: return true; case 2: return true; case 3: return true; case 4: return true; case 5: return true; case 6: return true; case 7: return true; case 8: return true; case 9: return true; case 10: return true; }
Map
const input = 10; const LUT = { 0: true, 1: true, 2: true, 3: true, 4: true, 5: true, 6: true, 7: true, 8: true, 9: true, 10: true } LUT[input];
MAP OBJECT
const input = 10; const LUT = new Map([ [0, true], [1, true], [2, true], [3, true], [4, true], [5, true], [6, true], [7, true], [8, true], [9, true], [10, true], ]) LUT.get(input);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Switch
Map
MAP OBJECT

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/101.0.4951.54 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 101 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Switch	1131236736.0 Ops/sec
Map	1128072832.0 Ops/sec
MAP OBJECT	1222973.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark JSON and explore what's being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Script Preparation Code` is empty, which means that no setup or initialization code is required for each test case. The `Html Preparation Code` is also empty, indicating that no HTML-specific preparation is needed.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **Switch**
2. **Map**
3. **MAP OBJECT**

These test cases aim to measure the performance of different approaches to achieve a specific outcome: determining whether the input value matches one of the predefined values in a lookup table (LUT).

**Approaches Compared**

* **Switch Statement**: The first approach uses an `if-else` switch statement to determine whether the input value matches any of the defined cases.
* **Map**: The second approach uses a `const Map` data structure to store the LUT and then retrieves the value using the `LUT[input]` syntax.
* **MAP OBJECT** (using `Map.prototype.get()`) : The third approach creates a new `Map` instance with predefined key-value pairs and then uses the `get()` method to retrieve the value.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Switch Statement**:
	+ Pros: Simple, straightforward implementation; good for small lookups.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of evaluating multiple conditions.
* **Map**:
	+ Pros: Fast lookups using hash-based data structure; easy to maintain LUTs.
	+ Cons: Requires more memory and may have slower initialization times compared to switch statements.
* **MAP OBJECT** (using `Map.prototype.get()`):
	+ Pros: Similar performance benefits as the Map approach; easier to implement for large LUTs.
	+ Cons: May incur additional overhead due to method call and potential caching issues.

**Library and Purpose**

In all three test cases, no external libraries are used. However, if a custom library were required for optimization or specific use cases, it might include optimized implementations of `Map` or other data structures.

The `Map.prototype.get()` method is part of the ECMAScript standard, which means that this approach should be supported by most modern browsers and JavaScript engines without additional libraries.

**Special JS Features**

No special JavaScript features are used in these test cases. The focus is on comparing the performance of basic control flow constructs (switch statement) and data structures (Map).

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to achieve similar results could include:

* Using `Object.values()` or `Object.entries()` with a custom callback function.
* Implementing a custom hash table using bitwise operations.
* Utilizing SIMD instructions for parallel processing of lookups.

However, these alternatives may not be as straightforward or efficient as the tested approaches and might require additional implementation effort.

Related benchmarks:

my test bench 1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Map vs MAP OBJECT

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Switch

Map

MAP OBJECT

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):