Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
1htrghdr
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
1
Comparing performance of:
flat vs map
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var arr = []; var i = 0; while (i <= 1E5) arr[i] = i++;
Tests:
flat
arr.flatMap(x => x/100)
map
arr.map(x => x/100)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
flat
map
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:122.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/122.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 122 on Linux
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=496410" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
map
728/s
flat
497/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
map
728 Ops/sec
flat
497 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Definition JSON** The provided Benchmark Definition JSON represents a single benchmark with two test cases: `map` and `flat`. This benchmark is testing the performance difference between using the `flatMap` method (introduced in ECMAScript 2019) and the traditional `map` method in JavaScript. **Options Compared** Two options are compared: 1. **FlatMap**: The `flatMap` method returns a new array with the results of applying an optional callback function to each element of the original array. 2. **Map**: The traditional `map` method returns a new array with the results of applying a provided function to each element of the original array. **Pros and Cons** Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach: 1. **FlatMap** * Pros: + Returns a new array, avoiding mutation of the original array. + Can be more concise and readable when used with callback functions. * Cons: + May incur additional overhead due to the creation of a new array. 2. **Map** * Pros: + Generally faster, as it doesn't require creating a new array. * Cons: + Mutates the original array (in this case, an empty array `arr`). + May not be as concise or readable with callback functions. **Library and Special JS Features** In both test cases, no specific JavaScript library is used. However, note that the `flatMap` method is a part of the ECMAScript standard and has been supported by most modern browsers since its introduction in 2019. No special JavaScript features are mentioned in this benchmark. **Other Alternatives** For the traditional `map` method, alternative approaches could include: * Using a `forEach` loop instead of `map`. * Utilizing a library like Lodash, which provides an implementation of `flatMap`. For the `flatMap` method, alternative approaches might include: * Using the `reduce()` method to achieve similar results. * Employing a third-party library that supports `flatMap`, as some older browsers or environments may not have native support. Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely change the benchmark's behavior and performance characteristics. **Benchmark Preparation Code** The provided script preparation code creates an empty array `arr` and populates it with numbers from 0 to 100,000 using a while loop. This serves as a simple input for both test cases. The HTML preparation code is set to null, indicating that no specific HTML-related setup or testing is required for this benchmark.
Related benchmarks
slice vs moving array vs reduce
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?