Benchmark: try, not numeric, cast to Numeric

Script Preparation code:

var notANumber = "foo";
var aNumber = 0;
var multiply = function(val){
  return val*2;
}

Tests:

try (fail)
try { multiply(notANumber); } catch(e) { }
not if - parseFloat (fail)
if (!isNaN(parseFloat(notANumber)) && isFinite(notANumber)) { multiply(notANumber); } else { }
not if - Number (fail)
if (Number(parseFloat(notANumber)) === notANumber) { multiply(notANumber); } else { }
try (pass)
try { multiply(aNumber); } catch(e) { }
not if - parseFloat (pass)
if (!isNaN(parseFloat(aNumber)) && isFinite(aNumber)) { multiply(aNumber); } else { }
not if - Number (pass)
if (Number(parseFloat(aNumber)) === aNumber) { multiply(aNumber); } else { }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
try (fail)
not if - parseFloat (fail)
not if - Number (fail)
try (pass)
not if - parseFloat (pass)
not if - Number (pass)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain the benchmark in detail.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The benchmark measures how different approaches perform when checking for numeric values using JavaScript's `parseFloat()` and `Number()` functions, while also handling non-numeric inputs like strings (`"foo"`). The goal is to determine which approach is faster and more efficient.

**Options Compared**

There are four options being compared:

1. **try-catch block**: Tries to execute the multiplication function with a non-numeric input, catching any exceptions thrown.
2. **if-else statement with `parseFloat()`**: Checks if `parseFloat()` can convert the input to a number without throwing an error or returning NaN (Not a Number).
3. **if-else statement with `Number()`**: Compares the result of `Number()` with the original input value to determine if it's numeric.
4. **no checks**: Simply calls the multiplication function with both a numeric and non-numeric input.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

1. **try-catch block**:
	* Pros: Robust error handling, can handle unexpected inputs.
	* Cons: Throws an exception, may slow down due to overhead of catching exceptions.
2. **if-else statement with `parseFloat()`**:
	* Pros: Efficient way to check for numeric values without throwing errors.
	* Cons: May return NaN if input is not a valid number.
3. **if-else statement with `Number()`**:
	* Pros: Can handle inputs that are not numbers, but may be less efficient than `parseFloat()`.
	* Cons: May return unexpected results for certain types of numeric values (e.g., NaN).
4. **no checks**: Simply executes the function without any input validation.
	* Pros: Fastest approach, but may throw errors or produce incorrect results.
	* Cons: Lacks robustness and error handling.

**Library and Purpose**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, `parseFloat()` and `Number()` are built-in JavaScript functions used to convert strings to numbers.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the options explicitly use special JavaScript features like arrow functions, async/await, or modern ES modules (ESM). The code is written in a more traditional style.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches for handling non-numeric inputs include:

* Using a `switch` statement with a `NaN` value as a default case
* Utilizing the `isNaN()` function to check if the input is NaN
* Implementing custom error handling using try-catch blocks or custom exception classes

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the options being tested.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/68.0.3440.42 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 68 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
try (fail)	3660950.5 Ops/sec
not if - parseFloat (fail)	1364872.5 Ops/sec
not if - Number (fail)	1194911.9 Ops/sec
try (pass)	4268517.5 Ops/sec
not if - parseFloat (pass)	780486.8 Ops/sec
not if - Number (pass)	992692.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

try, not numeric, cast to Numeric (version: 0)

see number 3 (avoid catching exception) https://stackoverflow.com/a/18411275/2601293

Comparing performance of: try (fail) vs not if - parseFloat (fail) vs not if - Number (fail) vs try (pass) vs not if - parseFloat (pass) vs not if - Number (pass)

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

try (fail)

not if - parseFloat (fail)

not if - Number (fail)

try (pass)

not if - parseFloat (pass)

not if - Number (pass)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):