Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
flatMap vs reduce using push spread vs map flat
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
reduce with spread vs flatMap vs map flat vs reduce with concat
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var arr = Array(10_000).fill({arr: [0,1]})
Tests:
reduce with spread
arr.reduce((acc, x) => {acc.push(...x.arr); return acc}, [])
flatMap
arr.flatMap(x => x.arr)
map flat
arr.map(x => x.arr).flat()
reduce with concat
arr.reduce((acc, x) => acc.concat(x.arr), [])
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (4)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
reduce with spread
flatMap
map flat
reduce with concat
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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark compares four different approaches to flatten an array using two functions: `reduce` and `flatMap`. The goal is to determine which approach is the most efficient. **Test Cases** There are four individual test cases: 1. **Reduce with spread**: This test case uses the `reduce` method with the spread operator (`...`) to flatten the inner arrays. 2. **flatMap**: This test case uses the `flatMap` method to flatten the inner arrays. 3. **Map flat**: This test case uses the `map` method followed by the `flat` method to flatten the inner arrays. 4. **Reduce with concat**: This test case uses the `reduce` method with the `concat` method to flatten the inner arrays. **Library Usage** None of the test cases use any external libraries beyond what's built into JavaScript (e.g., no jQuery or other frameworks). **Special JS Features/Syntax** * The spread operator (`...`) is used in two test cases: `reduce with spread` and `flatMap`. * The `flat()` method is used in one test case: `map flat`. Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach: 1. **Reduce with spread**: * Pros: Can be more efficient than other approaches because it avoids creating intermediate arrays. * Cons: May not be as readable or maintainable for complex cases. 2. **flatMap**: * Pros: More concise and expressive than `reduce` with the spread operator, making it easier to read and understand. * Cons: May create additional memory allocations if the inner array is large. 3. **Map flat**: * Pros: Can be more readable and maintainable than `reduce`, especially for cases where you need to transform each element before flattening. * Cons: May incur higher overhead due to the creation of intermediate arrays. 4. **Reduce with concat**: * Pros: Simple and straightforward, making it easy to understand and implement. * Cons: Creates multiple intermediate arrays, which can lead to performance issues for large inputs. **Other Alternatives** If you need more advanced flattening techniques, you might consider using: * `Array.prototype.flat()` (JavaScript 2017+): This method is similar to `flatMap`, but it allows you to specify the depth of flattening. * Third-party libraries like Lodash or Underscore.js: These libraries provide more comprehensive array manipulation utilities, including flattening functions. In conclusion, the benchmark provides a simple and easy-to-understand way to compare the performance of different flattening approaches in JavaScript. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, you can choose the best method for your specific use case.
Related benchmarks:
Reduce Push vs. flatMap
flatMap vs reduce using push
flatMap vs reduce using push spread
Reduce Push vs. flatMap with subarrays
flatMap vs Reduce with push - test
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?