Benchmark: Try/catch performance for control flow #3

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Try/catch
function checkNotFifty(num) { if (num !== 50) { return true; } throw new Error('Number is odd'); } for (let i = 0; i < 1000;++i) { let res; try { checkNotFifty(i); res = true; } catch (err) { res = false; } }
Without try/catch
function checkNotFifty(num) { if (num !== 50) { return true; } return false; } for (let i = 0; i < 1000;++i) { let res; if (checkNotFifty(i)) { res = true; } else { res = false; } }
Try/catch throwing a string
function checkNotFifty(num) { if (num !== 50) { return true; } throw 'Number is 50'; } for (let i = 0; i < 1000;++i) { let res; try { checkNotFifty(i); res = true; } catch (err) { res = false; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Try/catch
Without try/catch
Try/catch throwing a string

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case for try-catch performance in control flow. The tests measure the execution time of different approaches to handle conditional statements with try-catch blocks.

**Options compared:**

There are three test cases:

1. **Try/catch**: This approach uses a try block and catches any exceptions that may be thrown by the function `checkNotFifty`.
2. **Without try/catch**: This approach does not use a try-catch block, instead using conditional statements to handle the outcome of the function call.
3. **Try/catch throwing a string**: This approach is similar to the first one but throws a string instead of an error object.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

* **Try/catch**:
	+ Pros: Can efficiently handle exceptions, providing better runtime protection.
	+ Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to exception handling.
* **Without try/catch**:
	+ Pros: Typically has lower overhead compared to try-catch blocks.
	+ Cons: Does not provide runtime protection and may require more complex conditional logic.
* **Try/catch throwing a string**:
	+ Pros: Still provides some level of runtime protection, but with less overhead than throwing an error object.
	+ Cons: Throws a string exception instead of an error object, which might be considered less robust.

**Library usage:**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript engines like V8 (used by Chrome) have built-in features and optimizations that can affect performance.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax explicitly used in these benchmarks. The focus is on the try-catch mechanism and conditional statements.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark measures execution time, which is a common metric for performance comparison.
* The tests are run on Chrome 96 with Linux as the operating system.
* The benchmark results show the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) for each test case.

**Alternative approaches:**

For comparing try-catch performance, you might consider other approaches, such as:

* Using a different error handling mechanism, like async/await or promises
* Comparing the performance of different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8 vs. SpiderMonkey)
* Evaluating the impact of specific language features or optimizations on try-catch performance

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require additional setup and configuration to ensure fair comparisons.

Overall, the provided benchmark offers a simple yet informative way to compare try-catch performance in different scenarios.

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	160143.9 Ops/sec
Without try/catch	4461589.5 Ops/sec
Try/catch throwing a string	573890.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Try/catch performance for control flow #3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Try/catch vs Without try/catch vs Try/catch throwing a string

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Try/catch

Without try/catch

Try/catch throwing a string

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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