Benchmark: Try-Catch Loop - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var endIteration = {};

Tests:

StandardLoop
for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { ; }
TryCatchLoop
try { for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { ; } } catch(e) { }
TryCatchThrowLoop
try { for (var i = 0; ; i++) { if (i >= 10000) throw endIteration; } } catch(e) { if (e != endIteration) throw e; }

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 21 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 11 runs

StandardLoop

357K/s

TryCatchLoop

331K/s

TryCatchThrowLoop

242K/s

Fastest: StandardLoop (1.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ StandardLoop: 357,449 ops/sec
• TryCatchLoop: 330,728 ops/sec
• TryCatchThrowLoop: 241,604 ops/sec

Firefox 5 runs

TryCatchLoop

126K/s

StandardLoop

125K/s

TryCatchThrowLoop

12K/s

Fastest: TryCatchLoop (10.4x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ TryCatchLoop: 125,850 ops/sec
• StandardLoop: 125,489 ops/sec
• TryCatchThrowLoop: 12,141 ops/sec

Mobile Results:

Chrome 5 runs

StandardLoop

103K/s

TryCatchLoop

99K/s

TryCatchThrowLoop

84K/s

Fastest: StandardLoop (1.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ StandardLoop: 103,244 ops/sec
• TryCatchLoop: 98,754 ops/sec
• TryCatchThrowLoop: 84,486 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
StandardLoop
TryCatchLoop
TryCatchThrowLoop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/140.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 140 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

TryCatchLoop

306K/s

StandardLoop

305K/s

TryCatchThrowLoop

256K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ TryCatchLoop	305,625 Ops/sec
StandardLoop	305,399 Ops/sec
TryCatchThrowLoop	255,520 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of what is tested in the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark consists of three test cases: `StandardLoop`, `TryCatchLoop`, and `TryCatchThrowLoop`. The goal is to compare the performance differences between these three approaches in a JavaScript loop.

**Options Compared**

1. **Standard Loop**: A simple loop that iterates from 0 to 10,000 without any exception handling.
2. **Try-Catch Loop**: A loop that wraps the standard loop inside a try-catch block. This allows for catching and re-throwing exceptions.
3. **Try-Catch Throw Loop**: An extension of the previous approach, where the loop throws an exception when it reaches 10,000 iterations.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Standard Loop**:
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward to implement.
	* Cons: May exhibit cache behavior or other optimizations that can lead to varying performance results.
2. **Try-Catch Loop**:
	* Pros: Allows for exception handling, which can provide useful debugging information and improve code robustness.
	* Cons: Introduces additional overhead due to the try-catch block, which may impact performance.
3. **Try-Catch Throw Loop**:
	* Pros: Provides a more realistic scenario for error handling and can help identify potential issues in the loop implementation.
	* Cons: Requires careful consideration of when to throw an exception, as it can impact performance.

**Library Usage**

None of the test cases explicitly use any JavaScript libraries. However, they do utilize some internal browser features, such as:

* `try-catch` blocks, which are part of the JavaScript language specification.
* The `throw` statement, which is used to throw exceptions in the `TryCatchThrowLoop` case.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of `var` instead of `let` or `const` for variable declarations might affect performance results, as older browsers may optimize `var` differently than modern ones.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives could include:

1. Using a different loop construct, such as `for...of` or a recursive approach.
2. Adding additional logic to the loop, like checking for certain conditions or updating variables.
3. Using async/await or Promises instead of try-catch blocks for error handling.

However, these alternative approaches would likely require significant changes to the benchmark and may not directly compare the performance differences between the standard loop, try-catch loop, and try-catch throw loop.

I hope this explanation helps software engineers understand the test case and its implications!

Try-Catch Loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `StandardLoop vs TryCatchLoop vs TryCatchThrowLoop`

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

StandardLoop

TryCatchLoop

TryCatchThrowLoop

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 21 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 11 runs

Firefox 5 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Try-Catch Loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: StandardLoop vs TryCatchLoop vs TryCatchThrowLoop

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

StandardLoop

TryCatchLoop

TryCatchThrowLoop

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 21 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 11 runs

Firefox 5 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `StandardLoop vs TryCatchLoop vs TryCatchThrowLoop`