Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Try/catch performance for control flow #3
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Try/catch vs Without try/catch vs Try/catch throwing a string
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<div id="test"></div>
Tests:
Try/catch
function checkNotFifty(num) { if (num !== 50) { return true; } throw new Error('Number is odd'); } for (let i = 0; i < 1000;++i) { let res; try { checkNotFifty(i); res = true; } catch (err) { res = false; } }
Without try/catch
function checkNotFifty(num) { if (num !== 50) { return true; } return false; } for (let i = 0; i < 1000;++i) { let res; if (checkNotFifty(i)) { res = true; } else { res = false; } }
Try/catch throwing a string
function checkNotFifty(num) { if (num !== 50) { return true; } throw 'Number is 50'; } for (let i = 0; i < 1000;++i) { let res; try { checkNotFifty(i); res = true; } catch (err) { res = false; } }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Try/catch
Without try/catch
Try/catch throwing a string
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and its test cases. **What is tested?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case for try-catch performance in control flow. The tests measure the execution time of different approaches to handle conditional statements with try-catch blocks. **Options compared:** There are three test cases: 1. **Try/catch**: This approach uses a try block and catches any exceptions that may be thrown by the function `checkNotFifty`. 2. **Without try/catch**: This approach does not use a try-catch block, instead using conditional statements to handle the outcome of the function call. 3. **Try/catch throwing a string**: This approach is similar to the first one but throws a string instead of an error object. **Pros and cons of each approach:** * **Try/catch**: + Pros: Can efficiently handle exceptions, providing better runtime protection. + Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to exception handling. * **Without try/catch**: + Pros: Typically has lower overhead compared to try-catch blocks. + Cons: Does not provide runtime protection and may require more complex conditional logic. * **Try/catch throwing a string**: + Pros: Still provides some level of runtime protection, but with less overhead than throwing an error object. + Cons: Throws a string exception instead of an error object, which might be considered less robust. **Library usage:** There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript engines like V8 (used by Chrome) have built-in features and optimizations that can affect performance. **Special JS features or syntax:** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax explicitly used in these benchmarks. The focus is on the try-catch mechanism and conditional statements. **Other considerations:** * The benchmark measures execution time, which is a common metric for performance comparison. * The tests are run on Chrome 96 with Linux as the operating system. * The benchmark results show the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) for each test case. **Alternative approaches:** For comparing try-catch performance, you might consider other approaches, such as: * Using a different error handling mechanism, like async/await or promises * Comparing the performance of different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8 vs. SpiderMonkey) * Evaluating the impact of specific language features or optimizations on try-catch performance Keep in mind that these alternatives might require additional setup and configuration to ensure fair comparisons. Overall, the provided benchmark offers a simple yet informative way to compare try-catch performance in different scenarios.
Related benchmarks:
jQuery by id vs Document.getElementById
jQuery by class vs Document.getElementsByClassName
reparsing jQuery speed test
jQuery by id vs Document.getElementById
jQuery by id vs Document.getElementById123;
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?