Benchmark: Try/catch performance for control flow

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="test"></div>

Tests:

Try/catch
function checkEven(num) { if (num % 2 === 0) { return true; } throw new Error('Number is odd'); } for (let i = 0; i < 1000;++i) { let res; try { checkEven(i); res = true; } catch (err) { res = false; } }
Without try/catch
function checkEven(num) { if (num % 2 === 0) { return true; } return false; } for (let i = 0; i < 1000;++i) { let res; if (checkEven(i)) { res = true; } else { res = false; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Try/catch
Without try/catch

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance of JavaScript code in two different scenarios: with try/catch block and without try/catch block.

The benchmark script consists of two main parts:

1. A function `checkEven(num)` that checks if a number is even. If it is, it returns `true`, otherwise it throws an error.
2. A loop that calls the `checkEven(num)` function 1000 times in a row, and measures the execution time.

The test cases are:

* "Try/catch": The code is wrapped in a try-catch block to catch any errors thrown by the `checkEven(num)` function. If an error occurs, the loop exits early.
* "Without try/catch": The code does not have a try-catch block, so if an error occurs, the program will crash.

**Options compared**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches:

1. Using a try-catch block to handle errors
2. Not using a try-catch block and allowing the program to crash on error

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

* **Try/Catch Block:**
	+ Pros:
		- Allows the program to continue executing even if an error occurs
		- Can provide useful error information for debugging
	+ Cons:
		- May introduce additional overhead due to the block
		- Can be slower than not using a try-catch block
* **No Try/Catch Block:**
	+ Pros:
		- No additional overhead
		- May be faster than using a try-catch block
	+ Cons:
		- If an error occurs, the program will crash and cannot recover

**Library**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark script. However, some JavaScript engines like V8 (used by Google Chrome) have built-in optimizations for error handling that can affect performance.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax and does not rely on any esoteric features.

**Other alternatives**

If the goal of the benchmark were to test other aspects of performance, some alternative approaches could be:

* Measuring the performance of different compiler optimizations (e.g., dead code elimination, constant folding)
* Testing the performance of garbage collection algorithms
* Comparing the performance of different JavaScript engines or runtimes

However, for this specific benchmark, the focus is on comparing the performance of using a try-catch block versus not using one.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/96.0.4664.45 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 96 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Try/catch	475.4 Ops/sec
Without try/catch	4364577.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Try/catch performance for control flow (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Try/catch vs Without try/catch

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Try/catch

Without try/catch

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):