Benchmark: Switch vs Object Literal largerestbestfixed

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'q';


var objLiteral = {
  a: function() {
    console.log('A');
  },
  b: function() {
    console.log('B');
  },
  c: function() {
    console.log('C');
  },
  d: function() {
    console.log('D');
  },
  e: function() {
    console.log('E');
  },
  f: function() {
    console.log('F');
  },
  g: function() {
    console.log('G');
  },
  h: function() {
    console.log('H');
  },
  i: function() {
    console.log('I');
  },
  j: function() {
    console.log('J');
  },
  k: function() {
    console.log('K');
  },
  l: function() {
    console.log('L');
  },
  m: function() {
    console.log('M');
  },
  n: function() {
    console.log('N');
  },
  o: function() {
    console.log('O');
  },
  p: function() {
    console.log('P');
  },
  q: function() {
    console.log('Q');
  },
  r: function() {
    console.log('R');
  },
  s: function() {
    console.log('S');
  },
  t: function() {
    console.log('T');
  },
  u: function() {
    console.log('U');
  },
  v: function() {
    console.log('V');
  },
  w: function() {
    console.log('W');
  },
};

var switchtest = (str) => {
  switch (str) {
  case 'a': console.log('A'); break;
  case 'b': console.log('B'); break;
  case 'c': console.log('C'); break;;
  case 'd': console.log('D'); break;;
  case 'e': console.log('E'); break;;
  case 'f': console.log('F'); break;;
  case 'g': console.log('G'); break;;
  case 'h': console.log('H'); break;;
  case 'i': console.log('I'); break;;
  case 'j': console.log('J'); break;;
  case 'k': console.log('K'); break;;
  case 'l': console.log('L'); break;;
  case 'm': console.log('M'); break;;
  case 'n': console.log('N'); break;;
  case 'o': console.log('O'); break;;
  case 'p': console.log('P'); break;;
  case 'q': console.log('Q'); break;;
  case 'r': console.log('R'); break;;
  case 's': console.log('S'); break;;
  case 't': console.log('T'); break;;
  case 'u': console.log('U'); break;;
  case 'v': console.log('V'); break;;
  case 'w': console.log('W'); break;
}
}

Tests:

Switch
switchtest(str);
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 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:133.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/133.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 133 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Switch	184295.9 Ops/sec
Object Literal	184400.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided Benchmark Definition JSON represents two test cases: `Switch` and `Object Literal`. The main difference between these two test cases is how they access a string value in an object.

**Test 1: Switch**

In this test case, the code uses a `switch` statement to determine which value to log. The `switch` statement takes a string as input (in this case, `str`) and executes different blocks of code based on the value.

```javascript
var switchtest = (str) => {
  switch (str) {
    // ...
  }
};
```

**Pros:**

* Simple and straightforward to implement
* Can be optimized for specific use cases

**Cons:**

* May not perform well if the string values are long or complex, as it requires a table of matches
* May require additional memory to store the table of matches

**Test 2: Object Literal**

In this test case, the code accesses the value directly from an object using bracket notation (`objLiteral[str]()`).

```javascript
var objLiteral = {
  // ...
};

var objLiteraltest = (str) => {
  objLiteral[str]();
};
```

**Pros:**

* Typically faster than `switch` statements for large numbers of cases, as it avoids the overhead of a table of matches
* Does not require additional memory to store the value

**Cons:**

* May be slower if the object is too large or complex, as the lookup operation can be slow
* Requires knowledge of the object structure and property names

**Library Usage**

The code uses no external libraries. However, it does rely on a few built-in JavaScript features:

* `console.log()`: used to print output to the console
* Bracket notation (`[]`): used to access properties in objects

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None of the code uses any special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite these test cases using different approaches, here are some alternatives:

* Using a `switch` statement with a function pointer: Instead of using a `switch` statement, you could use a function pointer to call different functions based on the input value. This approach avoids the overhead of a table of matches and can be faster for large numbers of cases.
* Using a lookup table: If performance is critical, you could create a lookup table that maps string values to their corresponding indices or function pointers. This approach requires additional memory but can be faster than `switch` statements.
* Using an array-based approach: Instead of using a single object with multiple properties, you could use an array of functions and iterate over it based on the input value. This approach can be faster if the number of cases is large.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require additional knowledge of JavaScript optimization techniques and may not always provide better performance.

Related benchmarks:

Switch vs Object Literal largerestbestfixed (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Object Literal

Created: 4 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 llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):