Benchmark: flatMap vs filter.map (2)

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
var i = 0;

while (i <= 1E5) arr[i] = i++;

Tests:

filter().map()
arr.filter(x => x !== 0 && x % 3 && x !== 666).map(x => Math.round(x * Math.sqrt(x/100)))
flatMap()
arr.flatMap(x => (x !== 0 && x % 3 && x !== 666) ? Math.round(x * Math.sqrt(x/100)) : [])

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
filter().map()
flatMap()

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided benchmark definition JSON represents two individual test cases, each comparing the performance of `filter()` with `.map()` versus `flatMap()`. The script preparation code initializes an array `arr` and a loop that populates it with values from 0 to 100,000.

**What is tested?**

In this benchmark, we're testing the performance difference between:

1. Using `filter()` followed by `.map()`
2. Using `flatMap()`

The test cases aim to evaluate how efficient these two approaches are for performing a similar transformation on the array elements.

**Options Compared**

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

### 1. `filter()` with `.map()`

* Pros:
	+ Easy to read and understand
	+ Allows for explicit filtering and mapping steps
* Cons:
	+ Can be slower due to the overhead of function calls and iterations

### 2. `flatMap()`

* Pros:
	+ More concise and expressive
	+ Optimized for flat arrays, reducing iteration overhead
* Cons:
	+ Less intuitive for some developers, as it's a more recent feature

**Pros and Cons**

The main difference between these approaches lies in their performance characteristics. `flatMap()` is generally faster because it:

1. Avoids the overhead of function calls and iterations.
2. Optimized for flat arrays, which reduces the number of iterations.

However, `filter()` with `.map()` can be more intuitive and easier to read for some developers, especially those who are familiar with the `filter()` method.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned or used. The test cases rely solely on built-in JavaScript features.

No special JavaScript features like ES6 modules, async/await, or Web APIs are required to run these tests.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for similar transformations, consider the following:

* Using `Array.prototype.forEach()` with a callback function
* Utilizing libraries like Lodash or Ramda, which provide more expressive and concise ways to perform array operations

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case, personal preference, and the desired trade-offs between readability, performance, and maintainability.

Related benchmarks:

flatMap vs filter.map (2) (version: 0)

flatMap vs filter map

Comparing performance of: filter().map() vs flatMap()

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

filter().map()

flatMap()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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