Benchmark: lodash flatmap vs native

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var x = [1,2,3]

Tests:

lodash.flatMap
_.flatMap(x,x => [x-1, x, x+1])
native
x.flatMap(x => [x-1, x, x+1])

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.flatMap
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.flatMap	13223420.0 Ops/sec
native	6881189.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches: using Lodash (`lodash`) for flatMap functionality versus native implementation (i.e., without any external library).

**What is tested?**

* **Lodash**: A popular JavaScript utility library. In this benchmark, Lodash is used to implement the `flatMap` function.
* **Native Implementation**: The actual JavaScript engine's implementation of the `flatMap` function.

The test cases are designed to measure the performance difference between these two approaches.

**Options Compared:**

1. **Lodash (flatMap)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Well-maintained and widely used library with extensive documentation.
		+ Provides a familiar API for developers who already know its functionality.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds extra overhead due to the library itself, which may impact performance.
2. **Native Implementation (flatMap)**:
	* Pros:
		+ No additional overhead from an external library.
		+ Likely optimized for performance by the JavaScript engine.

**Pros and Cons**

The choice between using Lodash (`flatMap`) or native implementation depends on your specific needs:

* If you prioritize convenience, readability, and familiarity with a well-maintained library, use `flatMap` (Lodash).
* If you're looking to optimize performance without any additional overhead, use the native implementation.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, keep in mind:

* The Lodash version being used might impact performance. Version 4.16.0 is being tested.
* Your project's size and complexity can affect the benefits of using a library like Lodash.
* If you're working on a small, simple project, the overhead from Lodash might not be significant.

**Additional Notes**

The benchmark tests are designed to compare the performance difference between these two approaches. The test case uses an array `x` with three elements `[1, 2, 3]`, and for each element, it generates two new arrays using a lambda function (`[x-1, x, x+1]`).

Related benchmarks:

lodash flatmap vs native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.flatMap vs native

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.flatMap

native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):