Try/Catch performance overhead

JavaScript performance comparison

Revision 16 of this test case created

Info

Using try/catch inside of functions that allocate lots of variables introduces significant overhead. See this discussion related to node.js https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/nodejs-dev/E-Re9KDDo5w

Interestingly, other js engines don't have this overhead. All test runs have pretty uniform performance. But they are also significantly slower than the v8 control case.

Preparation code

 
<script>
Benchmark.prototype.setup = function() {
    var j=1000;
};
</script>

Test runner

Warning! For accurate results, please disable Firebug before running the tests. (Why?)

Java applet disabled.

Testing in unknown unknown
Test Ops/sec
control - no try/catch
var trycache=function(callback)
{
try
{
callback();
}
catch(e)
{}
}
var f=function() {
var s = [];
for (var i = 0; i < j; i++) s[i] = i;}

trycache(f);
pending…
try/catch inside function
try
{
var s = [];
for (var i = 0; i < j; i++) s[i] = i;
}
catch(e)
{}
pending…
try/catch outside function
var f=function() {
var s = [];
for (var i = 0; i < j; i++) s[i] = i;}

try
{
f();
}
catch(e)
{}
pending…

Compare results of other browsers

Revisions

You can edit these tests or add even more tests to this page by appending /edit to the URL. Here’s a list of current revisions for this page:

0 comments

Add a comment