Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
lodash flatmap vs native
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
lodash.flatMap vs native
Created:
one year ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=573336" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
lodash.flatMap
13.2M/s
native
6.9M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
lodash.flatMap
13,223,420 Ops/sec
native
6,881,190 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 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 Vanilla flatmap
lodash flatmap vs Vanilla flatmapaa
flatmap: lodash vs native
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?