Benchmark: Jump vs switch case v2

Script Preparation code:

// Switch
function thing(j)
{
  switch(j)
  {
    case 0:
      return "rah";
    case 1:
      return "lah";
    case 2:
      return "sah";
    case 3:
      return "blah";
  }
}

// Jumptable
function rah()
{
  return "rah";
}

function lah()
{
  return "lah";
}

function sah()
{
  return "sah";
}

function blah()
{
  return "blah";
}

var jumpTable = [rah, lah, sah, blah];

// Arrow functions
var jumpTableArrow = [() => "rah", () => "lah", () => "sah", () => "blah"]

// Map
var jumpTableMap = new Map(jumpTableArrow.map((fun, i) => [i, fun]))

Tests:

switch case
for(let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { for(let j = 0; thing(j) != "blah"; j++) { } }
jump table
for(let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { for(let j = 0; jumpTable[j]() != "blah"; j++) { } }
jump table (arrow functions)
for(let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { for(let j = 0; jumpTableArrow[j]() != "blah"; j++) { } }
jump table (Map)
for(let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { for(let j = 0; jumpTableMap.get(j)() != "blah"; j++) { } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
switch case
jump table
jump table (arrow functions)
jump table (Map)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different approaches for implementing a jump table:

1. **Switch statement**: A traditional switch statement with multiple cases.
2. **Jumptable**: A jump table implemented using an array of functions.
3. **Arrow functions**: Arrow functions used as a jump table.
4. **Map**: Using a Map data structure to implement the jump table.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these four options:

* Switch statement (traditional approach)
* Jumptable (array-based approach)
* Arrow functions (functional programming approach)
* Map (data structure-based approach)

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of each option:

1. **Switch Statement**: Pros:
	* Easy to implement
	* Good for small jump tables
Cons:
	* Slow for large jump tables due to the overhead of checking multiple cases
	* Not suitable for dynamic data or runtime changes
2. **Jumptable**: Pros:
	* Fast lookup times using arrays
	* Suitable for both static and dynamic data
Cons:
	* Requires manual indexing and management
3. **Arrow Functions**: Pros:
	* Concise and expressive syntax
	* Good for small to medium-sized jump tables
Cons:
	* Less readable than traditional functions
4. **Map**: Pros:
	* Fast lookup times using Hash Tables (similar to Jumptable)
	* Suitable for both static and dynamic data
Cons:
	* Requires additional memory to store the Map

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned, but Map is a built-in JavaScript object.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The arrow function syntax (`() =>`) is used in two test cases (jump table and jump table with Map). This is a relatively recent feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015, allowing for concise function expressions.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing an approach, consider the following factors:

* **Size of the jump table**: For small tables, switch statements might be sufficient. For larger tables, Jumptable or Map might be more suitable.
* **Dynamic data**: If your use case involves dynamic data, Jumptable or Map might be a better choice.
* **Performance-critical code**: When performance is critical, Jumptable or Map might provide a slight performance advantage over switch statements.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches not mentioned in this benchmark include:

* Using a `switch` statement with a lookup table (e.g., an object)
* Implementing a custom data structure, such as a trie
* Using an interpreter or a dynamic compiler

Keep in mind that the choice of approach ultimately depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
switch case	39.8 Ops/sec
jump table	32.5 Ops/sec
jump table (arrow functions)	32.5 Ops/sec
jump table (Map)	29.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Jump vs switch case v2 (version: 0)

Updated to separate function creation from test. Also added in alternatives for arrow functions and Map

Comparing performance of: switch case vs jump table vs jump table (arrow functions) vs jump table (Map)

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

switch case

jump table

jump table (arrow functions)

jump table (Map)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):