Benchmark: Try/catch performance (JSON parse)

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Try/catch
try { JSON.parse('{"name":"John", "age":31, "city":"New York"}'); } catch(error) { console.log(error); } finally { console.log("!"); }
Without try/catch
JSON.parse('{"name":"John", "age":31, "city":"New York"}');

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 one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents the JavaScript code that will be executed as part of the benchmark. It consists of three parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This section is empty in this case, which means no special setup or initialization code needs to be executed before running the benchmark.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: The provided HTML code creates a simple `<div>` element with an ID of "test", which will likely be used as a container for the benchmark results.
3. **Benchmark Definition**: This section defines two different JavaScript functions:
	* `Try/catch performance (JSON parse)`: This function calls `JSON.parse()` inside a try-catch block, but only logs the error if one occurs. The finally block is empty.
	* `Without try/catch`: This function simply calls `JSON.parse()` without any error handling.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Try/catch**: This test case executes the `Try/catch performance (JSON parse)` benchmark definition and measures its execution time.
2. **Without try/catch**: This test case executes the `Without try/catch` benchmark definition and measures its execution time.

**Pros and Cons**

The two approaches differ in how they handle potential errors during JSON parsing:

* **With try-catch block**:
	+ Pros: Can catch and handle any errors that occur during JSON parsing, potentially reducing the number of failures.
	+ Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to the try-catch block, which can slow down execution time. Also, if an error is caught, it may indicate a problem with the input data rather than a performance issue.
* **Without try-catch block**:
	+ Pros: Eliminates the potential overhead of the try-catch block and allows for more direct measurement of execution time.
	+ Cons: May result in a large number of failures if the input data is malformed, which can skew the benchmark results.

**Library Used**

The `JSON.parse()` function is used to parse JSON data. It's a built-in JavaScript method that parses a JSON string into a JavaScript object.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark definition. However, it does use the `try-catch` block, which is a common pattern for error handling in JavaScript.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to measuring performance could include:

* Using a different JSON parsing library or implementation (e.g., with a focus on performance).
* Adding more complexity to the input data to simulate real-world scenarios.
* Using a different benchmarking framework or tool.
* Comparing performance across multiple browsers or platforms.

Overall, this benchmark definition aims to compare the execution times of two approaches: one that uses try-catch blocks for error handling and another that does not. The results can help determine which approach is more efficient in terms of execution time.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 13 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Try/catch	199965.3 Ops/sec
Without try/catch	2813324.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Try/catch performance (JSON parse) (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 one month ago):