Benchmark: Sort with compare inside/outside with try catch

Script Preparation code:

var filteredData = Array.from({length: 1000000}, () => (Math.floor(Math.random() * 100000) === 4) ? null : (Math.random() + 1).toString(36).substring(7));
var sortOrder = 'DESC';

Tests:

inside compare
filteredData.sort((a, b) => { try{ if (sortOrder === 'DESC') { return b.localeCompare(a); } return a.localeCompare(b); } catch (e) { console.log('error for a: ', a, 'and b: ', b) return 0 } });
outside compare
filteredData.sort( sortOrder === 'DESC' ? (a, b) => { try{ return b.localeCompare(a) } catch(e) { console.log('error for a: ', a, 'and b: ', b) return 0 } } : (b, a) => { try { return b.localeCompare(a) } catch(e) { console.log('error for a: ', a, 'and b: ', b) return 0 } } );

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
inside compare
outside compare

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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to test the performance of JavaScript's sorting algorithm when using try-catch blocks inside the comparison function.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **"inside compare"**: This test case uses a try-catch block inside the comparison function to catch any errors that may occur during sorting.
2. **"outside compare"**: In this test case, the try-catch block is outside the comparison function, but it's still executed before each iteration.

**Comparison**

The two test cases are compared in terms of their execution time and performance. The goal is to determine which approach (inside or outside try-catch) is faster.

**Pros and Cons**

**Inside Try-Catch:**

Pros:

* May provide better error handling and debugging capabilities
* Can be beneficial for complex sorting algorithms that involve multiple comparisons

Cons:

* Can introduce additional overhead due to the try-catch block, which can slow down the sorting process
* May lead to performance issues if not implemented correctly (e.g., using a global try-catch handler)

**Outside Try-Catch:**

Pros:

* Eliminates the overhead of the try-catch block, resulting in faster execution times
* Can be beneficial for simple sorting algorithms that don't require extensive error handling

Cons:

* May not provide adequate error handling and debugging capabilities
* Requires careful consideration to ensure that errors are properly handled and logged

**Library Usage**

The benchmark doesn't explicitly use any libraries, but it does rely on the `Array.prototype.sort()` method, which is a built-in JavaScript function. The `localeCompare()` method used in the comparison functions is also a built-in method.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

This benchmark doesn't explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's necessary for the sorting algorithm and error handling.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to compare in a benchmark like this could include:

* Using a different sorting algorithm (e.g., quicksort, mergesort)
* Adding additional overhead to the sorting process (e.g., using a parallel sorting library)
* Changing the input data or distribution
* Using a different JavaScript engine or runtime environment

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
inside compare	13.5 Ops/sec
outside compare	29.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Sort with compare inside/outside with try catch (version: 1)

test

Comparing performance of: inside compare vs outside compare

Created: 6 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

inside compare

outside compare

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):