Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
flat() vs flatMap()
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
flat() vs flatMap()
Created:
one year ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var arr = Array.from({ length: 9999 }, () => [{a: 1, b: 2, c:3 }, {d: 4, e: 5, f: 6}]);
Tests:
flat()
arr.flat();
flatMap()
arr.flatMap(e => e);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
flat()
flatMap()
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
7 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:142.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/142.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 142 on Linux
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
flat()
5298.2 Ops/sec
flatMap()
4101.2 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark compares two approaches to flatten an array of objects in JavaScript: `flat()` vs `flatMap()`. The input data is an array of 10,000 objects, each containing multiple properties (a, b, c, d, e, f). **Options Compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **`arr.flat()`**: This method uses the spread operator (`...`) to flatten the array. 2. **`arr.flatMap(e => e)`**: This method uses a callback function to iterate over each object in the array and return a new flattened array. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **`flat()`** * Pros: + More concise and readable code + Less memory overhead due to not creating intermediate arrays * Cons: + Can be slower than `flatMap()` for large datasets, as it uses the spread operator which creates a new array 2. **`flatMap()`** * Pros: + Generally faster than `flat()`, especially for large datasets + More flexible, as it allows for custom iteration logic * Cons: + More verbose code compared to `flat()` + Creates an intermediate array, which can increase memory overhead **Library and Special JS Feature** There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark. However, both methods are built-in JavaScript methods. If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, some options include: 1. **`Array.prototype.reduce()`**: This method can be used to flatten an array by accumulating the values from each object. 2. **`lodash.flat()`**: If you're using the Lodash library, you can use `_.flat()` which is a more concise and readable way to flatten an array. **Other Considerations** When writing benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors such as: 1. **Dataset size**: The size of the input data can significantly impact performance. 2. **Platform and browser**: Different platforms and browsers may exhibit varying performance characteristics due to differences in JavaScript engines, memory management, and other factors. 3. **Optimization techniques**: Optimizations like caching, memoization, or parallel processing may affect performance. In this benchmark, the results indicate that `flatMap()` is generally faster than `flat()`, especially for large datasets. However, the actual performance difference will depend on the specific use case, dataset size, and platform being tested.
Related benchmarks:
flatMap vs map/flat
flatMap vs flat+map
Reduce Push vs. flatMap with subarrays
flatMap vs flat+map 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?