Benchmark: flatMap vs reduce (concatenation)

Script Preparation code:

var arr = Array(10_000).fill(0)

Tests:

reduce with concat
arr.reduce((acc, x) => acc.concat([x, x]), [])
flatMap
arr.flatMap(x => [x, x])

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition JSON:**

The benchmark definition provides two test cases:

1. `flatMap vs reduce (concatenation)`: This is the overall benchmark name, which indicates that it compares the performance of two different approaches:
	* `flatMap(x => [x, x])`
	* `arr.reduce((acc, x) => acc.concat([x, x]), [])`
2. The script preparation code: `var arr = Array(10_000).fill(0)`, which creates an array with 10,000 elements filled with zeros.
3. No HTML preparation code is provided.

**Individual Test Cases:**

There are two test cases:

1. `reduce with concat`: This test case uses the `arr.reduce()` method with a callback function that concatenates each element with itself using the `concat()` method.
2. `flatMap`: This test case uses the `arr.flatMap()` method, which is a more modern and efficient way to flatten an array.

**Comparison:**

The two approaches are compared in terms of their performance. The benchmark measures how many executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) each approach can perform on the prepared array.

**Options Compared:**

* `reduce` with `concat`
* `flatMap`

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Reduce with concat**:
	* Pros:
		+ More widely supported across browsers and versions.
		+ Can be more intuitive for developers familiar with the `reduce()` method.
	* Cons:
		+ Less efficient due to the use of the `concat()` method, which creates a new array on each iteration.
		+ May lead to performance issues with large datasets.
2. **FlatMap**:
	* Pros:
		+ More modern and efficient, as it avoids creating intermediate arrays.
		+ Better suited for large datasets and high-performance applications.
	* Cons:
		+ Less widely supported across browsers and versions (although increasingly supported).
		+ May require more complex code to achieve the same result.

**Library/Feature:**

There is no specific library or feature being tested in this benchmark. However, `flatMap()` is a newer method introduced in ECMAScript 2019, which provides better performance and efficiency compared to older methods like `reduce()` with `concat()`.

Related benchmarks:

flatMap vs reduce (concatenation) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: reduce with concat vs flatMap

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

reduce with concat

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):