Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
.flat vs _.flatten
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
_.flatten vs .flat
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Tests:
_.flatten
const arr = [['1', '2', '3'], ['1', '2', '3'], ['1', '2', '3']] _.flatten(arr)
.flat
const arr = [['1', '2', '3'], ['1', '2', '3'], ['1', '2', '3']] arr.flat()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
_.flatten
.flat
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 YaBrowser/25.6.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Yandex Browser 25 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=613072" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
_.flatten
22.9M/s
.flat
5.5M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
_.flatten
22,949,050 Ops/sec
.flat
5,546,854 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the provided benchmark definition and explanations. **Benchmark Definition** The website `MeasureThat.net` provides a JSON representation of a benchmark, which consists of two individual test cases: `.flatten()` and `.flat()`. The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of these two JavaScript methods in flattening an array of arrays. **Options Compared** Two options are being compared: 1. `_._flatten(arr)` (using Lodash's `flatten()` function) 2. `arr.flat()` (the built-in `.flat()` method) **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** **Lodash's `_._flatten(arr)`** Pros: * Well-tested and widely used library * Provides a clear and concise API for flattening arrays * Can handle nested arrays with arbitrary depth Cons: * Adds an additional dependency (Lodash) to the benchmark, which may not be desirable for smaller codebases * May have overhead due to the addition of extra functions or objects **Built-in `.flat()` method** Pros: * No additional dependencies needed * Built-in functionality, so no additional overhead * Can be more lightweight and efficient Cons: * Only works with arrays, whereas `flatten()` can handle nested arrays * May not be as clear or concise an API as Lodash's version **Other Considerations** The benchmark uses two different libraries: Lodash (`lodash.min.js`) for the `_._flatten(arr)` option, and none (i.e., built-in JavaScript) for the `.flat()` option. This allows users to choose between using a popular library or relying on built-in functionality. There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. **Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative methods, here are a few options: 1. **Array.prototype.flat() with depth parameter**: Some modern browsers support the `flat()` method with an optional `depth` parameter, which allows you to specify how many nested arrays should be flattened. 2. **Array.prototype.reduce() or Array.prototype.forEach()**: You could use these methods to flatten arrays by concatenating elements and iterating over each element in the array. However, these alternatives may not provide the same level of convenience as Lodash's `flatten()` function or the built-in `.flat()` method. Keep in mind that this benchmark only compares two specific options. If you have other questions about flattening arrays or JavaScript performance, feel free to ask!
Related benchmarks
isEmpty vs. vanilla
Array immutable union: lodash union vs flatten and creating a new set
lodash flatmap vs Vanilla flatmap
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?