Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
flatMap vs reduce (concat, spread, append)
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
flatMap vs reduce - concat vs reduce - spread vs reduce - push
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var arr = Array(2000).fill(1).map(() => ({ items: Array(10).fill(1) }))
Tests:
flatMap
arr.flatMap(x => x.items)
reduce - concat
arr.reduce((acc, x) => acc.concat(x.items), [])
reduce - spread
arr.reduce((acc, x) => ([...acc, ...x.items]), [])
reduce - push
arr.reduce((acc, x) => { acc.push(...x.items); return acc; }, [])
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (4)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
flatMap
reduce - concat
reduce - spread
reduce - push
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 what's being tested on the provided JSON. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to flatten an array of objects using either `flatMap`, `reduce` with concatenation, `reduce` with spreading, or `reduce` with pushing. **Options Compared** There are four options being compared: 1. **flatMap**: A modern JavaScript method that flattens an array of arrays into a single array. 2. **Reduce - concat**: Using the `reduce()` method with `concat()` to concatenate arrays. 3. **Reduce - spread**: Using the `reduce()` method with the spread operator (`...`) to flatten the array. 4. **Reduce - push**: Using the `reduce()` method with the `push()` method to append elements to an accumulator array. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **flatMap**: * Pros: Efficient, modern JavaScript method, concise syntax. * Cons: Not supported in older browsers or environments that don't support it natively. 2. **Reduce - concat**: * Pros: Widely supported, simple to implement. * Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of concatenating arrays. 3. **Reduce - spread**: * Pros: Concise syntax, efficient way to flatten arrays. * Cons: Introduced in ECMAScript 2018, may not be supported in older browsers or environments. 4. **Reduce - push**: * Pros: Wide support across browsers and environments. * Cons: Less concise syntax, may be slower due to the overhead of `push()`. **Library and Purpose** There is no specific library being used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some libraries like Lodash provide `flatMap` implementations as a utility function. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** None of the options being compared rely on special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's supported by modern browsers. **Other Considerations** * **Array flattening**: The benchmark focuses solely on array flattening, which may not be representative of other use cases. * **Browser and environment variations**: The benchmark results are specific to a Chrome 114 run on a Mac OS X 10.15.7 environment, so the performance differences might not generalize across other browsers or environments. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for array flattening include: 1. Using `Array.prototype.flat()` (ES6+): A more concise and efficient method than the ones being compared. 2. Using a library like Lodash's `_flattenDeep` function: Offers additional features, such as handling nested arrays of varying depths. In summary, the benchmark provides an insight into the performance differences between four approaches to flatten arrays using JavaScript's built-in methods. The results are specific to a particular browser and environment, but they can serve as a baseline for comparing the efficiency of different array flattening techniques.
Related benchmarks:
flatMap vs reduce using push
flatMap vs reduce using push spread
flat map vs reduce concat
flat map vs reduce concat for real
flatMap vs reduce flattern array
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?