Switch statement for greater-than/less-than

Question

When I looked at the solutions in the other answers I saw some things that I know are bad for performance. I was going to put them in a comment but I thought it was better to benchmark it and share the results. You can test it yourself. Below are my results (ymmv) normalized after the fastest operation in each browser.

Here is the results from 2021-MAY-05

Test	Chrome	Firefox	Opera	Edge	Brave	Node
1.0 time	15 ms	14 ms	17 ms	17 ms	16 ms	14 ms
if-immediate	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
if-indirect	2.20	1.21	2.06	2.18	2.19	1.93
switch-immediate	2.07	1.43	1.71	1.71	2.19	1.93
switch-range	3.60	2.00	2.47	2.65	2.88	2.86
switch-range2	2.07	1.36	1.82	1.71	1.94	1.79
switch-indirect-array	2.93	1.57	2.53	2.47	2.75	2.50
array-linear-switch	2.73	3.29	2.12	2.12	2.38	2.50
array-binary-switch	5.80	6.07	5.24	5.24	5.44	5.37

The tests in 2021 where performed on Windows 10 64bit with the following versions: Chrome 90.0.4430.212, Firefox 89.0b13, Opera 76.0.4017.123, Edge 90.0.818.62, Brave 1.24.85, and Node 16.1.0 (was run under WSL)

Apple doesn't update Safari for Windows, so it is still 5.1.7. I changed it to Brave in this test.

Here is the results from 2012-September-04, for historical comparison:

Test	Chrome	Firefox	Opera	MSIE	Safari	Node
1.0 time	37 ms	73 ms	68 ms	184 ms	73 ms	21 ms
if-immediate	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.6	1.0	1.0
if-indirect	1.2	1.8	3.3	3.8	2.6	1.0
switch-immediate	2.0	1.1	2.0	1.0	2.8	1.3
switch-range	38.1	10.6	2.6	7.3	20.9	10.4
switch-range2	31.9	8.3	2.0	4.5	9.5	6.9
switch-indirect-array	35.2	9.6	4.2	5.5	10.7	8.6
array-linear-switch	3.6	4.1	4.5	10.0	4.7	2.7
array-binary-switch	7.8	6.7	9.5	16.0	15.0	4.9

The tests in 2012 where performed on Windows 7 32bit with the folowing versions: Chrome 21.0.1180.89m, Firefox 15.0, Opera 12.02, MSIE 9.0.8112, Safari 5.1.7. Node was run on a Linux 64bit box because the timer resolution on Node for Windows was 10ms instead of 1ms.

if-immediate

This is the fastest method in all tested environments, except in ... drumroll MSIE! (surprise, surprise).

This is the recommended way to implement it.

if (val < 1000) { /*do something */ } else
if (val < 2000) { /*do something */ } else
...
if (val < 30000) { /*do something */ } else

if-indirect

This is a variant of switch-indirect-array but with if-statements instead and is faster in all tested engines.

In 2021 it was 20-120% (2012: 0-280%) slower than the fastest test. Chrome takes longer time in 2021 (2.20) than in 2012 (1.2)

values=[
   1000,  2000, ... 30000
];
if (val < values[0]) { /* do something */ } else
if (val < values[1]) { /* do something */ } else
...
if (val < values[29]) { /* do something */ } else

switch-immediate

This works when you can do a calculation to get an index.

In 2021 it was 40-120% (2012: 0-180%) slower than if-immediate, except in MSIE where it actually was the fastest.

switch (Math.floor(val/1000)) {
  case 0: /* do something */ break;
  case 1: /* do something */ break;
  ...
  case 29: /* do something */ break;
}

switch-range

It is slow because the engine has to compare the value twice for each case.

In 2021 it was 1-2.6 (2012: 1.6-38) times slower than the fastest test. Chrome has made the biggest improvement from 38 to 3.6, but is still the slowest tested engine.

switch (true) {
  case (0 <= val &&  val < 1000): /* do something */ break;
  case (1000 <= val &&  val < 2000): /* do something */ break;
  ...
  case (29000 <= val &&  val < 30000): /* do something */ break;
}

switch-range2

This is a variant of switch-range but with only one compare per case and therefore faster. The order of the case statement is important since the engine will test each case in source code order ECMAScript 2020 13.12.9

In 2021 it was 36-107% slower than the fastest test, but in 2012 it was 1-31 times slower. It is still Chrome who has the worst performance on this test, but it has improved from 32 to 2 times.

switch (true) {
  case (val < 1000): /* do something */ break;
  case (val < 2000): /* do something */ break;
  ...
  case (val < 30000): /* do something */ break;
}

switch-indirect-array

In this variant the ranges is stored in an array.

In 2021 it was 57-193% (2012: 3-35 times) slower than the fastest test. The perormance has improved in all tested engines, and while Chrome is still the slowest, it has improved from 35 to 2.93.

values=[1000,  2000 ... 29000, 30000];

switch(true) {
  case (val < values[0]): /* do something */ break;
  case (val < values[1]): /* do something */ break;
  ...
  case (val < values[29]): /* do something */ break;
}

array-linear-search

In this variant the ranges is stored in an array.

In 2021 it was 57-193% (2012: 3-35 times) slower than the fastest test. The perormance has improved in all tested engines, and while Chrome is still the slowest, it has improved from 35 to 2.93.

values=[1000,  2000 ... 29000, 30000];

for (sidx=0, slen=values.length; sidx < slen; ++sidx) {
  if (val < values[sidx]) break;
}

switch (sidx) {
  case 0: /* do something */ break;
  case 1: /* do something */ break;
  ...
  case 29: /* do something */ break;
}

array-binary-switch

This is a variant of array-linear-switch but with a binary search. Unfortunately it is slower than the linear search. I don't know if it is my implementation or if the linear search is more optimized. It could also be that the keyspace is to small.

In 2021 this was 4-5 (2012: 4-16) times slower. Do not use.

values=[0, 1000,  2000 ... 29000, 30000];

while(range) {
  range = Math.floor( (smax - smin) / 2 );
  sidx = smin + range;
  if ( val < values[sidx] ) { smax = sidx; } else { smin = sidx; }
}

switch (sidx) {
  case 0: /* do something */ break;
  ...
  case 29: /* do something */ break;
}

Conclusion

If performance is important, use if-statements or switch, with immediate values.

An alternative:

var scrollleft = 1000;
switch (true)
{
    case (scrollleft > 1000):
      alert('gt');
      break;
    case (scrollleft <= 1000):
      alert('lt');
      break; 
}

Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/UWYzr/

switch (Math.floor(scrollLeft/1000)) {
  case 0: // (<1000)
   //do stuff
   break;
  case 1: // (>=1000 && <2000)
   //do stuff;
   break;
}

Only works if you have regular steps...

EDIT: since this solution keeps getting upvotes, I must advice that mofolo's solution is a way better

You can create a custom object with the criteria and the function corresponding to the criteria

var rules = [{ lowerLimit: 0,    upperLimit: 1000, action: function1 }, 
             { lowerLimit: 1000, upperLimit: 2000, action: function2 }, 
             { lowerLimit: 2000, upperLimit: 3000, action: function3 }];

Define functions for what you want to do in these cases (define function1, function2 etc)

And "evaluate" the rules

function applyRules(scrollLeft)
{
   for(var i=0; i>rules.length; i++)
   {
       var oneRule = rules[i];
       if(scrollLeft > oneRule.lowerLimit && scrollLeft < oneRule.upperLimit)
       {
          oneRule.action();
       }
   }
}

Note

I hate using 30 if statements

Many times if statements are easier to read and maintain. I would recommend the above only when you have a lot of conditions and a possibility of lot of growth in the future.

Update
As @Brad pointed out in the comments, if the conditions are mutually exclusive (only one of them can be true at a time), checking the upper limit should be sufficient:

if(scrollLeft < oneRule.upperLimit)

provided that the conditions are defined in ascending order (first the lowest one, 0 to 1000, and then 1000 to 2000 for example)

What exactly are you doing in //do stuff?

You may be able to do something like:

(scrollLeft < 1000) ? //do stuff
: (scrollLeft > 1000 && scrollLeft < 2000) ? //do stuff
: (scrollLeft > 2000) ? //do stuff
: //etc.