Benchmark: Filtering + Mapping

Script Preparation code:

var arr = new Array(100).fill(null).map((val, index) => index);

function filterMap(
  iterable,
  filterFn,
  mapFn,
) {
  const result = [];
  for (const value of iterable) {
    if (filterFn(value)) {
      result.push(mapFn(value));
    }
  }
  return result;
}

Tests:

Using filterMap()
const a = filterMap(arr, (val) => val % 2 === 0, (val) => val + 10);
.filter.map
const a = arr .filter((val) => val % 2 === 0) .map((val) => val + 10);
Flatmap
const a = arr.flatMap((val) => val % 2 === 0 ? [val + 10] : [])

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Using filterMap()
.filter.map
Flatmap

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

ⓘ Get performance results from real users on your website with Request Metrics.

Website Performance Monitoring by Request Metrics

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Using filterMap()	4097254.0 Ops/sec
.filter.map	2691821.0 Ops/sec
Flatmap	176721.1 Ops/sec

Filtering + Mapping (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Using filterMap() vs .filter.map vs Flatmap

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Using filterMap()

.filter.map

Flatmap

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A