Benchmark: testing the performance of try catch vs check for undefined

Tests:

using try catch block
const obj = { obj : { obj: { obj: { obj: 1 } } } } for (let i=0; i<99; i++) { try { const val = obj.obj.obj.obj.obj; } catch (e) { //do nothing } }
using check
const obj = { obj : { obj: { obj: { obj: 1 } } } } const getNested = obj => (path) => { const arr = path.split('.'); return arr.reduce( (root, key) => ((root && root[key] !== 'undefined') ? root[key] : undefined), obj, ); }; for (let i=0; i<99; i++) { getNested(obj)('obj.obj.obj.obj'); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
using try catch block
using check

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches: using `try-catch` blocks and checking for `undefined` manually.

**Approach 1: Using try-catch block**

In this approach, a `try` block is used to access a deeply nested object within an object. If the property does not exist at that level, a `catch` block catches the error and allows the execution to continue.

```javascript
try {
  const val = obj.obj.obj.obj.obj;
} catch (e) {}
```

**Approach 2: Checking for undefined manually**

In this approach, a custom function `getNested` is used to access the same deeply nested object. The function uses a recursive approach with array reduction to iterate through a path string and check if each property exists at that level.

```javascript
const getNested = obj => (path) => {
  const arr = path.split('.');
  return arr.reduce(
    (root, key) =>
      ((root && root[key] !== 'undefined') ? root[key] : undefined),
    obj,
  );
};

getNested(obj)('obj.obj.obj.obj');
```

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

* **Try-catch block:**
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and readable code
		- Less chance of incorrect results due to manual property checks
	+ Cons:
		- May introduce unnecessary overhead due to error handling
		- Can lead to unexpected behavior if not handled correctly
* **Checking for undefined manually:**
	+ Pros:
		- More explicit control over the access process
		- Can be more efficient in terms of execution speed
	+ Cons:
		- More verbose and potentially error-prone code
		- Requires manual property checks to avoid errors

**Library**

There is no specific library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the `getNested` function uses a simple recursive approach with array reduction.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. The code relies on standard language constructs such as objects, arrays, and loops.

**Other alternatives**

Other approaches to access deeply nested objects could include:

* Using a library like Lodash's `get` method
* Utilizing a JavaScript framework like React's `useCallback` hook
* Implementing a custom recursive function with explicit type checking

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The benchmark preparation code is empty, which means that no additional setup or configuration is required to run the test.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:125.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/125.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 125 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
using try catch block	10146887.0 Ops/sec
using check	59776.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testing the performance of try catch vs check for undefined (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: using try catch block vs using check

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

using try catch block

using check

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):