Benchmark: lodash flatmap vs Vanilla flatmap 3

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var x = [{a: 1, b: 2}, [{a: 736457, b: 35345},[{a: 76457, b: 5345},{a: 23431, b: 43242},{a: 14324, b: 2342},{a: 141, b: 65432}],{a: 234311, b: -43242},{a: 124324, b: 23432},{a: 31, b: 234234432}],{a: 11, b: 22}, {a: 421, b: 112}, [{a: 76457, b: 5345},{a: 23431, b: 43242},{a: 14324, b: 2342},{a: 141, b: 65432}]]

Tests:

Vanilla js flatmap
x.flatMap(x => x.a+x.b)
lodash.flatMap
_.flatMap(x,x => x.a+x.b)

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 7 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 7 runs

Vanilla js flatmap

4.5M/s

lodash.flatMap

4.3M/s

View exact numbers

✓ Vanilla js flatmap: 4,531,735 ops/sec
• lodash.flatMap: 4,315,171 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Vanilla js flatmap
lodash.flatMap

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/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

lodash.flatMap

4.3M/s

Vanilla js flatmap

4.1M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ lodash.flatMap	4,297,726 Ops/sec
Vanilla js flatmap	4,125,827 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 provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to flatten an array of objects: vanilla JavaScript `flatMap` function and Lodash's `flatMap` function. The input data is a 2D array of objects, where each object has two properties: `a` and `b`.

**Test Case Comparison**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **Vanilla js flatmap**: This test case uses the built-in JavaScript `flatMap` function to flatten the input array.
2. **lodash.flatMap**: This test case uses Lodash's `flatMap` function, which is a higher-order function that takes an array and a transformation function as arguments.

**Comparison**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between these two approaches on the same input data. The results will show how much faster or slower one approach is compared to the other.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Vanilla js flatmap**:
	* Pros:
		+ Built-in function, no additional library required.
		+ Easy to use and understand.
	* Cons:
		+ May have performance limitations due to the inherent nature of JavaScript's array manipulation.
		+ Can be slower than optimized libraries like Lodash.
2. **Lodash.flatMap**:
	* Pros:
		+ Optimized for performance, often faster than vanilla JavaScript approaches.
		+ Provides additional features and convenience methods.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an external library (Lodash).
		+ May have a learning curve due to the higher-order function nature.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, object transformation, and functional programming. The `flatMap` function in Lodash takes an array and a transformation function as arguments, returning a new array with the transformed values.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None mentioned**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond the standard `flatMap` function.

**Other Alternatives:**

1. **Array.prototype.flat()**: This is another approach to flatten an array, but it's not as optimized as Lodash's `flatMap`.
2. **ES6 Array.prototype.flatMap()**: If you're using a modern JavaScript environment, you can use the built-in `flatMap()` function, which was introduced in ES6.
3. **Other libraries**: There are other utility libraries like Underscore.js, Ramda, or even custom implementations that might offer better performance for specific use cases.

Keep in mind that this benchmark is designed to compare two specific approaches, but it's essential to consider the broader context and potential alternatives when choosing a library or implementation for your project.

lodash flatmap vs Vanilla flatmap 3 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: `Vanilla js flatmap vs lodash.flatMap`

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Vanilla js flatmap

lodash.flatMap

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 7 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 7 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

lodash flatmap vs Vanilla flatmap 3 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Vanilla js flatmap vs lodash.flatMap

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Vanilla js flatmap

lodash.flatMap

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 7 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 7 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Vanilla js flatmap vs lodash.flatMap`