Benchmark: trycatch-benchmark-sum

Tests:

trycatch inside
let sum = 0; for (let i =0; i < 10000; i++) { try { sum += i; } catch(e) {} }
baseline
let sum = 0; for (let i =0; i < 10000; i++) { sum += i; }
trycatch outside
let sum = 0; try { for (let i =0; i < 10000; i++) { sum += i; } } catch(e) {}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
trycatch inside
baseline
trycatch outside

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 13; M2104K10AC Build/TP1A.220624.014; wv) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Chrome/120.0.6099.193 Mobile Safari/537.36 Lark/7.29.4 LarkLocale/zh_CN ChannelName/Feishu TTWebView/1201130054425

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 120 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
trycatch inside	116896.6 Ops/sec
baseline	112936.4 Ops/sec
trycatch outside	122304.1 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark named "trycatch-benchmark-sum" evaluates the performance impact of using JavaScript's `try-catch` construct in different placements within a loop that sums numbers from 0 to 9999. Here are the details of the specific test cases and their implications:

### Test Cases & Comparisons
1. **Test Name: "trycatch inside"**
   - **Benchmark Definition:** 
     ```javascript
     let sum = 0;
     for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
       try {
         sum += i;
       } catch(e) {}
     }
     ```
   - **Description:** In this case, the `try-catch` block is placed inside the loop, wrapping the operation of summing numbers. 
   - **Performance Impact:** Enclosing the summation operation within a `try-catch` could lead to performance overhead due to the cost of exception handling for every iteration. If no exceptions occur, the cost may seem minimal, but the continuous overhead can accumulate, particularly in tight loops.

2. **Test Name: "baseline"**
   - **Benchmark Definition:**
     ```javascript
     let sum = 0;
     for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
       sum += i;
     }
     ```
   - **Description:** This serves as the baseline test without any exception handling.
   - **Performance Impact:** By not using `try-catch`, this version should ideally perform the fastest because it does not introduce any additional overhead from exception handling.

3. **Test Name: "trycatch outside"**
   - **Benchmark Definition:**
     ```javascript
     let sum = 0;
     try {
       for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
         sum += i;
       }
     } catch(e) {}
     ```
   - **Description:** Here, the `try-catch` is placed outside the loop, meaning that if an exception occurs during the summation, it will be caught after the loop has finished.
   - **Performance Impact:** This approach minimizes the performance overhead of exception handling as it's executed only once, rather than for each iteration. However, if an exception occurs, the entire operation's execution would still halt, which may not be the desired behavior in all contexts.

### Pros and Cons of Approaches
- **"trycatch inside":** 
  - **Pros:** Good at catching errors that might arise from operations within the loop.
  - **Cons:** Introduces significant performance overhead, especially in scenarios without exceptions.

- **"baseline":** 
  - **Pros:** Offers the best performance, ideal for scenarios where exceptions are unlikely or non-critical.
  - **Cons:** Doesn't handle exceptions, which could lead to uncaught errors and potentially disrupt the program flow.

- **"trycatch outside":**
  - **Pros:** Balances performance and error handling, as the loop runs uninterrupted unless an exception occurs.
  - **Cons:** It may catch unexpected errors later, which could lead to debugging challenges if issues arise from the loop operations.

### Special Considerations and Alternatives
- **Alternatives:** Depending on the use case, alternatives for handling potential errors without performance hits could include using condition checks to validate inputs/operations before executing them, which could prevent the need for `try-catch` entirely. Similarly, using promises or async/await patterns can manage error handling in asynchronous code without incurring the same overhead during synchronous operations.

- **General Knowledge:** The overall guidance for developers is to minimize the use of `try-catch` for performance-critical code, opting instead for strategies that can validate data or operations before they are executed.

In summary, the benchmark evaluates different placements of the `try-catch` block concerning their performance in JavaScript, providing insights that can help engineers make informed decisions about error handling in performance-sensitive code.

Related benchmarks:

trycatch-benchmark-sum (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: trycatch inside vs baseline vs trycatch outside

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

trycatch inside

baseline

trycatch outside

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 months ago):