Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
flatMap vs reduce(push)
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
reduce with concat vs flatMap
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var arr = Array(10_000).fill(0)
Tests:
reduce with concat
let result = new Array(arr.length * 2); arr.reduce((acc, x) => { result.push(x, x); return result; }, result)
flatMap
arr.flatMap(x => [x, x])
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
reduce with concat
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):
I'll break down the benchmark and its components, explaining what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons. **Benchmark Definition** The provided JSON defines a benchmark with two test cases: `reduce with concat` and `flatMap`. The script preparation code initializes an array `arr` with 10,000 elements filled with zeros. The HTML preparation code is empty. **What's being tested?** Two JavaScript methods are being compared: 1. **Array.prototype.reduce()**: This method applies a callback function to each element of the array, accumulating a result. 2. **Array.prototype.flatMap()**: This method creates a new array with the results of applying a provided function to each element in the original array. **Options compared** The two methods are being tested with different approaches: 1. `reduce()` using `push` (as shown in the benchmark definition for "reduce with concat"): This approach uses the `push` method to add elements to the result array, which can lead to performance issues due to frequent calls to `push`. 2. `flatMap()`: This approach is expected to be more efficient than using `reduce()` because it avoids the overhead of repeated `push` calls. **Pros and Cons** 1. **Using `reduce()` with `push`**: * Pros: Simple implementation, easy to understand. * Cons: Can lead to performance issues due to frequent `push` calls. 2. **Using `flatMap()`**: * Pros: More efficient than using `reduce()` because it avoids repeated `push` calls. * Cons: May be less intuitive for some developers. **Library and purpose** None of the test cases use a specific library. However, if we consider the context, both methods are native JavaScript array methods, which means they're part of the standard language. **Special JS feature or syntax** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax and doesn't employ any advanced features like async/await, promises, or experimental APIs. **Other alternatives** If you wanted to test these methods using other approaches, here are some alternatives: 1. **Using `forEach()`**: Instead of using `push`, you could use the `forEach` method to iterate over the array and accumulate results. 2. **Using a custom loop**: You could implement a custom loop using a for loop or an arrow function to compare the performance of different methods. In summary, this benchmark tests the performance difference between two JavaScript array methods: `reduce()` with `push` and `flatMap()`. The test compares these methods in terms of efficiency, with `flatMap()` being expected to perform better due to its optimized implementation.
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?