Benchmark: If vs Switch - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

const value = 'Cancelled';
const obj = { Rejected: true, Cancelled: true }

Tests:

ifTest1
function ifTest1() { return (value === 'Rejected' || value === 'Cancelled'); }
switchTest2
function switchTest2() { switch(value) { case 'Rejected': case 'Cancelled': return true; default: return false; } }
Object keys
function objectKeys() { return value in obj; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ifTest1
switchTest2
Object keys

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing three different approaches to check if a value exists in an object:

1. `if` statement
2. `switch` statement
3. Using the `in` operator on objects (also known as "object keys" or "property existence")

Each approach has its own script preparation code, which defines the variables and data structures used in the benchmark.

**Approaches Comparison**

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

### 1. `if` statement

The `if` statement checks if the value is equal to one of the keys in the object using the `===` operator. This approach can be efficient, but it may not be as readable or maintainable as other approaches.

Pros: Simple and straightforward.
Cons: May not be as flexible or scalable.

### 2. `switch` statement

The `switch` statement checks if the value matches any of the cases defined in the switch expression. This approach can be more expressive than the `if` statement, but it may have performance overhead due to the branching.

Pros: More readable and maintainable.
Cons: May introduce performance overhead due to branching.

### 3. Using the `in` operator on objects

The `in` operator checks if the value is a property of the object. This approach is often used when you don't care about the key name, just its existence.

Pros: Efficient and flexible.
Cons: May not be as readable or maintainable for some developers.

**Library Used**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON benchmark. However, it's likely that the `in` operator is implemented by the JavaScript engine (V8 in this case) under the hood.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided code snippets.

**Other Considerations**

When running microbenchmarks like this one, consider the following:

* Use a recent and representative browser version to ensure accurate results.
* Avoid caching or memoization for each test case, as it may skew the results.
* Use a consistent set of hardware and network conditions to maintain reproducibility.

**Alternatives**

If you need to compare different approaches to checking existence in objects, here are some alternative approaches:

1. `includes()` method (ECMAScript 2019+): This is similar to the `in` operator but with additional features, such as handling array-like objects.
2. `Object.hasOwn()`: This method checks if an object has a property with the given name.
3. Using `Array.prototype.includes()` or `String.prototype.indexOf()` on arrays and strings, respectively.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the original approaches.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2025 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/64.0.3282.119 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 64 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
ifTest1	1089356672.0 Ops/sec
switchTest2	1087638784.0 Ops/sec
Object keys	1067442304.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

If vs Switch (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: ifTest1 vs switchTest2 vs Object keys

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ifTest1

switchTest2

Object keys

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):