CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c#performancetry-catch
filipot
filipot

Reputation: 176

try catch for performance c#

My knowledge with try catch is limited. But i wonder if it can be used to gain performance.

Example, i am creating this voxel engine where a function is like this:

Block GetBlockInChunk(Vector Position){
    if(InBound(Position)){
        return Database.GetBlock();
    }
    return null;
}

Here it has to check bounds of the given position, with using try catch, then you can remove them?

Block GetBlockInChunk(Vector Position){
    try{
        return Database.GetBlock();
    }
    catch{
        return null;
    }
}

I feel like this is probably terrible practice, but i am curious.

Upvotes: 3

Views: 4919

Answers (2)

Shai
Shai

Reputation: 9

It is about 2 years later, but it is still relevant...

I respect the other replies but I believe there is a basic misunderstanding here for the purpose of try-catch. Try Catch is a very effective way within the C# and dotnet, to identify errors over the development and the life of the code. It is never intended to be a tool to use different, and if it is been fire, it means that you have a bug that needs to be fixed.

The problem it comes to solve is the standard error message that stops the code and then you need to dig in. With try and catch you can know in which method the problem occurs and narrow down the search.

As standard, I wrap ALL my methods with try-catch and added an additional functionality that writes the error message with the name of the method and additional essential information like time, and some helpful anchors of data to a debug file, which I can access even when the code is in production. This is priceless!

As far as performance, if the try-catch doesn't fire (which should be normal), there is no performance reduction, as it is merely a simple warper. If someone is really into a high level of performance and every fraction matter, it is possible to eliminate it using precompiler conditions (#if...).

Hope this is helpful.

Upvotes: 0

Abion47
Abion47

Reputation: 24661

The link I provided in the above comment shows a description of why you shouldn't ever use a try-catch when an if-statement would prevent the exception from being thrown, but in the interest of showing performance in terms of actual numbers, I wrote this quick little test program.

Stopwatch watch = new Stopwatch();

int[] testArray = new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
int? test = null;

watch.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
{
    try
    {
        testArray[(int)test] = 0;
    }
    catch { }
}
watch.Stop();

Console.WriteLine("try-catch result:");
Console.WriteLine(watch.Elapsed);
Console.WriteLine();

watch.Restart();
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
{
    if (test != null)
        testArray[(int)test] = 0;
}
watch.Stop();

Console.WriteLine("if-statement result:");
Console.WriteLine(watch.Elapsed);

The result of the program is this:

try-catch result:
00:00:32.6764911

if-statement result:
00:00:00.0001047

As you can see, the try-catch approach introduces significant overhead when an exception gets caught, taking over 30 seconds to complete 10,000 cycles on my machine. The if-statement, on the other hand, runs so fast that it is basically instantaneous. Compared to the try-catch, this is a performance improvement in the neighborhood of 3,000,000%.

(This isn't a rigorous benchmark, and there are ways to write it and run it differently to get more precise numbers, but this should give you a good idea of just how much more efficient it is to use an if-statement over a try-catch whenever possible.)

Upvotes: 8

Related Questions