Benchmark: switch case vs object literal abublebublbebubleblelb

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'abc';
str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 3));

var objLiteral = {
  a: function() {
    console.log('A');
  },
  b: function() {
    console.log('B');
  },
  c: function() {
    console.log('C');
  }
}

Tests:

switch
switch (str) { case 'a': console.log('A'); break; case 'b': console.log('B'); break; case 'c': console.log('C'); break; }
Object literal
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

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
switch	149698.9 Ops/sec
Object literal	130976.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark described in the provided JSON focuses on comparing two different approaches for executing control flow in JavaScript: using a `switch` statement and using an object literal as a function map. The aim is to assess the performance differences between these two options when reacting to a dynamically chosen input value.

### Test Options Compared

1. **Switch Statement**
   - **Implementation:** 
     ```javascript
     switch (str) {
       case 'a': console.log('A'); break;
       case 'b': console.log('B'); break;
       case 'c': console.log('C'); break;
     }
     ```
   - **Functionality:** The `switch` statement provides a way to execute different blocks of code based on the value of `str`. It evaluates the input and matches it against various cases, executing the corresponding block for matching cases.

2. **Object Literal as Function Map**
   - **Implementation:**
     ```javascript
     objLiteral[str]();
     ```
   - **Functionality:** An object literal `objLiteral` is used here to map string keys to function values. Instead of using a series of conditional checks, it directly invokes the function associated with the value of `str`.

### Pros and Cons of Each Approach

#### Switch Statement

**Pros:**
- **Readability:** The structure of a switch statement can be straightforward and easy to read, especially when comparing multiple cases.
- **Simplicity:** For a small number of cases, the switch statement is simple to implement and understand.

**Cons:**
- **Performance:** In certain cases, especially with many cases or more complex logic, a switch statement may become slower as it may require evaluation of each case until a match is found.
- **Scalability:** As the number of cases increases, the readability can decrease, leading to larger blocks of code that are cumbersome to manage.

#### Object Literal as Function Map

**Pros:**
- **Performance:** Object property access (`objLiteral[str]`) is generally faster than evaluating multiple case statements in a switch, especially for a larger number of cases. It allows for quick lookups and avoids the need for multiple conditional checks.
- **Maintainability:** Adding or removing cases is simpler as it only involves adding or removing properties from the object, which can be cleaner than modifying a long switch statement.

**Cons:**
- **Initialization Overhead:** The object literal approach may have slightly more overhead on initialization since you have to define the mapping upfront.
- **Input Handling:** If the input (`str`) doesn’t match any key in the object, it could lead to an error (unless handled), while a switch statement allows for a `default` case to handle unexpected values.

### Other Considerations

- **Function Execution Context:** Using an object literal as a function map preserves the context for `this` when methods are defined within an object. This allows for a clean and modular design if using methods that rely on object properties.
- **Error Handling:** If using the object literal, it's essential to ensure `str` maps to a function; otherwise, invoking `undefined` could lead to errors. This aspect would require additional error handling code.

### Alternatives

- **If-Else Chains:** This is another common way to manage conditional logic. It can be verbose and potentially less efficient than both the switch and the object literal approaches, particularly when there are many conditions.
- **Map/Array-Based Solutions:** More complex designs could employ ES6 Maps or arrays for lookups, especially in scenarios where the keys are dynamic or the data set is large.
- **Function Dispatching:** Another advanced technique is function dispatching, where you define functions and the related keys dynamically, similar to the object literal but generated at runtime.

In general, selecting between these approaches should consider the size of the potential input set and the context of usage, balancing performance, readability, and maintainability.

Related benchmarks:

switch case vs object literal abublebublbebubleblelb (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: switch vs Object literal

Created: 2 months 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 gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 months ago):