Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
flatMap + flatMap vs flat(2)+map
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
flatmap vs map+flat
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var arr = Array(10_000).fill(0)
Tests:
flatmap
arr.flatMap((x) => [[1, 2], [1, 2]].flatMap(y => [x, y]))
map+flat
arr.map((x) => [[1, 2], [1, 2]].map(y => [x, y])).flat(2)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
flatmap
map+flat
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 123 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=521722" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
map+flat
1K/s
flatmap
566/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
map+flat
1,328 Ops/sec
flatmap
566 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'd be happy to help explain the provided benchmark. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: 1. `flatMap` with an arrow function 2. `map` followed by `flat(2)` with an arrow function **Script Preparation Code** The script preparation code is: ```javascript var arr = Array(10,000).fill(0); ``` This creates an array of 10,000 zeros. **Html Preparation Code** There is no html preparation code provided. **Library Usage** In the benchmark, we can see that it uses the `Array.prototype.flatMap()` and `Array.prototype.map()` methods. These methods are part of the ECMAScript standard and do not require any additional libraries to be included. However, in some browsers, `flat(2)` is not supported by default. In this case, it's possible that a polyfill or transpiler was used to make `flat` work. **Special JavaScript Features/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. **Benchmark Test Cases** The test cases compare the performance of two approaches: 1. `flatMap`: Using `flatMap()` with an arrow function to flatten an array of arrays. ```javascript arr.flatMap((x) => [[1, 2], [1, 2]].flatMap(y => [x, y])); ``` 2. `map + flat(2)`: Using `map()` followed by `flat(2)` with an arrow function to flatten an array of arrays. ```javascript arr.map((x) => [[1, 2], [1, 2]].map(y => [x, y])).flat(2); ``` **Benchmark Results** The benchmark results show the performance of each approach on a Chrome browser: * `map + flat`: 1327.55 executions per second * `flatMap`: 566.32 executions per second **Other Alternatives** If the `flatMap` method was not supported by the browser, alternative approaches could have been used, such as: 1. Using a custom implementation of `flatMap` using `map()` and `concat()`. 2. Using a library that provides a polyfill for `flat(2)`, such as Lodash or Underscore.js. However, in this case, the `Array.prototype.flatMap()` method is used, which is a built-in feature of JavaScript and does not require any additional libraries to be included.
Related benchmarks
flatMap vs map/flat
flatMap vs flat+map
flat() vs flatMap()
flatMap vs flat+map 2
flatMap vs map/flat 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?