Benchmark: HasOwnProperty + throw or ignore

Script Preparation code:

var data = {};
  var max = 1000;
  
  for (let i = 0; i < max; i++) {
    if (Math.random() < 0.85) {
       data[i] = {some: 'value'};
    }
  }

Tests:

with check
for (var i = 0; i < max; i++) { try { setData(i); } catch (e) {} } function setData(i) { if (!data.hasOwnProperty(i)) { throw new Error('data not found'); } var b = data[i].some; }
without check
for (var i = 0; i < max; i++) { try { setData(i); } catch (e) {} } function setData(i) { var b = data[i].some; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
with check
without check

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what is being tested in the provided JSON.

The benchmark tests the difference between two approaches when checking for the existence of a property using `HasOwnProperty` and throwing an error if it doesn't exist, versus ignoring the situation and continuing execution without throwing an error.

**Options being compared:**

1. **With check**: This approach throws an error if the property is not found in the object.
	* Pros:
		+ Helps catch errors earlier in the code execution.
		+ Can be useful for debugging purposes, as it forces the developer to handle the exception.
	* Cons:
		+ Can cause performance issues due to the overhead of throwing and catching exceptions.
		+ May lead to a "silent failure" where the program continues running without issue, but with incorrect results.
2. **Without check**: This approach ignores the situation and continues execution without throwing an error if the property is not found in the object.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark uses a randomly generated dataset to ensure that the results are representative of real-world scenarios.
* The `Data` object is created with varying amounts of data (up to 1000 entries) to simulate different sizes and distributions of data.
* The `setData` function is called in a loop, simulating multiple iterations where the property check might be performed.

**Library and its purpose:**

There are no external libraries being used in this benchmark.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special features or syntax being tested or used in this benchmark. It appears to be using standard JavaScript syntax.

**Benchmark preparation code explanation:**

The script preparation code creates an empty `Data` object with 1000 entries, where each entry has a random value for the property `'some'`. This simulates a dataset with varying amounts of data and different distributions of values.

**Individual test cases explanation:**

Each test case defines a loop that calls the `setData` function in a try-catch block. The main difference between the two test cases is whether an error is thrown when the property is not found:

1. **With check**: Throws an error if the property is not found, and catches it to ignore.
2. **Without check**: Ignores the situation and continues execution without throwing an error.

**Latest benchmark result explanation:**

The latest benchmark results show the performance of each test case on a specific machine (Firefox 58 on Mac OS X 10.13). The `ExecutionsPerSecond` value represents how many times the `setData` function is executed per second, which is affected by the number of iterations and the overhead of throwing and catching exceptions.

In this case, the "with check" test case performs better than the "without check" test case, indicating that the overhead of throwing an error is significant.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2025 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:58.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/58.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 58 on Mac OS X 10.13

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
with check	2425.4 Ops/sec
without check	1458.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

HasOwnProperty + throw or ignore (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: with check vs without check

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

with check

without check

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):