Benchmark: Try/catch performance

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Try/catch
try { var id = document.getElementById("test"); } catch(error) { console.log(error); } finally { console.log("!"); }
Without try/catch
var id = document.getElementById("test");

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.

I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript code that interacts with HTML elements, specifically by retrieving an element using its `id` property.

**Options Compared**

Two main options are compared:

1. **Try/Catch Block**: The first test case wraps the code that retrieves the element in a try/catch block, which attempts to catch any exceptions that might occur during execution.
2. **No Try/Catch Block**: The second test case runs the code without a try/catch block.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Try/Catch Block**:
	+ Pros: Allows for error handling and provides feedback if an exception occurs.
	+ Cons: Can introduce additional overhead due to the check, parsing, and potential exception handling mechanisms in the browser.
* **No Try/Catch Block**:
	+ Pros: Avoids the overhead of try/catch block checking, parsing, and exception handling.
	+ Cons: Fails if an exception occurs during execution.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, `document.getElementById` is used to retrieve an HTML element. This is a standard JavaScript API provided by most browsers, allowing developers to access DOM elements in their web pages.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. The code uses only basic JavaScript constructs like variables, conditional statements (if), and functions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to measure the performance of similar code without try/catch blocks, you could consider alternative approaches:

* **Using a different DOM access method**: Instead of `document.getElementById`, you might use other methods like `document.querySelector` or `querySelectorAll`.
* **Adding additional error handling mechanisms**: You could add error handling using techniques like promise-based APIs or async/await.
* **Measuring performance without JavaScript**: If you're interested in measuring the performance of non-JavaScript code, consider using a language-agnostic benchmarking framework.

In summary, this benchmark tests the performance difference between running code with and without try/catch blocks when retrieving an HTML element using `document.getElementById`.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 15_6_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/15.6.1 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 15 on iOS 15.6.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Try/catch	646967.2 Ops/sec
Without try/catch	4533348.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Try/catch performance (version: 0)

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

Created: 4 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):