Related
I was asked in an interview to write a program/algo to sort an array of number using recursion.
Though I vaguely answered it, I tried and came up with following code:
You can use following JSFiddle link to play around.
function sort(arr) {
if (arr.length === 2) {
const v1 = arr[0];
const v2 = arr[1];
const isGreater = (
(isString(v1) && isString(v2) && v1.toString().toLocaleCompare(v2) > 0) ||
(isNumber(v1) && isNumber(v2) && v1 > v2)
);
return isGreater ? [ v2, v1 ] : [ v1, v2 ];
} else {
const last = arr.pop();
const ret = sort(arr);
const newLast = ret.peekLast();
if (newLast < last) {
return [ ...ret, last ];
} else {
return sort( [ last, ...ret ] );
}
}
}
function isString(value) { return typeof value === 'string'; }
function isNumber(value) { return Number.isFinite(value); }
Array.prototype.peekLast = function () { return this.slice().pop(); }
//console.log(sort([1,2,3,4,5]))
console.log(sort([5,4,3,2,1]))
The algo I implemented is:
Take the array and check if its length is greater than 2.
If yes,
Remove last element and store it in a variable.
Again call same function without last element till it has 2 items.
Accept array returned from recursive call and peek the last element.
If newLast value is greater than previousLast
Push previousLast as first element and again call itself with this array.
If not, push previousLast to array and return it.
Else,
For number and string check equality and return correct order.
For anything else, return same value
Question is, is there a better way to implement (algo wise)?
Note: I'm not expecting code improvements. Objective of this question is improvement in algo part or any general stuff I have missed.
I also know, current code does not support:
Sort order. It will sort ascending only.
May break for Date objects, and does not support Objects in general.
Thanks!
I think most interviewers would expect you to respond with quicksort or merge sort (or both) given that question. Of the two, quicksort, is easier to remember and recreate in a pinch because the merge step of merge sort is easy to mess up.
Quicksort is a really beautiful algorithm and is a natural fit for javascript's functional tools. It is worth really understanding if you'll be doing interviews:
const arr = [6, 1, 5, 3, 9, 6, 7, 10, 16, 4, 0, 12, 2]
function qsort(arr){
if (arr.length < 2) return arr
// choose a pivot, p
// the choice of pivot can effect worst-case performance
// for this, we'll just use the first element.
const [p, ...rest] = arr
// partition array into element greater and lesser that the pivot
// this can be optimized so you don't loop through the array twice
const low = rest.filter(n => n <= p)
const high = rest.filter(n => n > p)
// recurse on both partitions and reassemble as recursion unwinds
return [...qsort(low), p, ...qsort(high)]
}
console.log(qsort(arr).join(', '))
I see a vein of intermediate value creation that is not inconsequential.
peekLast calls Array.prototype.slice which makes a copy of the array. You copy an entire array just to return the last element.
Array.prototype.peekLast = function () { return this.slice().pop(); }
Array.prototype.peekLast = function () { return this[this.length]; }
This gives you the same result every time without the need to copy.
Use of spread arguments in expressions like [ ...arr, x ] copies arr entirely.
arr.concat([ x ]) does the same thing without making copy (or mutation) of arr
You call peekLast and use ...x once per element in the input. Calling sort on a list of just 100 items will copy over 10,000 elements, for these operations alone. A list of just 1,000 items will copy over 1,000,000 elements. Room for algorithm improvment? For sure.
Mark Meyer starts you off on the right foot. If you're going to use recursion, it's best writing your program in functional style, as it will yield the best results. Mixing imperative style (statements, mutations, reassignments, other side effects, etc) with recursion is a recipe for a migraine.
Mark's algorithm, however great a "code improvement", your question is asking for "algorithm improvements". Under this lens, Mark's algorithm suffers from similar intermediate value creation by use of many ...x expressions.
Another lurking offense is the double use of .filter on the same array, rest. This creates an inefficient process as it iterates entirely through rest two (2) times per element. This is a symptom of reaching for low-hanging built-in functions that do close to what you want, but not exactly what you want. A better function would iterate through the array once and return both results.
The inefficiencies in Mark's program are mostly forgivable because of the dramatic improvement in code quality. His program is much more readable than yours because he's using functional style, which is where recursion comes from. The inefficiencies are also very easy to fix, so maybe that's an exercise for you?
Let's see if that gets your brain going. We'll see what answers other people submit before smothering you with too much information.
Your code will fail if we have duplicate elements because of this line.
if (newLast < last) {
It will go into infinite recursion
Refer the snippet with the duplicate array passed as input
function sort(arr) {
if (arr.length === 2) {
const v1 = arr[0];
const v2 = arr[1];
const isGreater = (
(isString(v1) && isString(v2) && v1.toString().toLocaleCompare(v2) > 0) ||
(isNumber(v1) && isNumber(v2) && v1 > v2)
);
return isGreater ? [ v2, v1 ] : [ v1, v2 ];
} else {
const last = arr.pop();
const ret = sort(arr);
const newLast = ret.peekLast();
debugger;
if (newLast < last) {
return [ ...ret, last ];
} else {
return sort( [ last, ...ret ] );
}
}
}
function isString(value) { return typeof value === 'string'; }
function isNumber(value) { return Number.isFinite(value); }
Array.prototype.peekLast = function () { return this.slice().pop(); }
//console.log(sort([1,2,3,4,5]))
console.log(sort([3,3,5,2]))
this one work for me to sort an array recursively:
var array = [3,1,8,2,4,9,16,28];
const sum = (arr, i=0)=> {
if(i === arr.length) return arr;
if(arr[i+1] < arr[i]){
const x = arr[i+1];
arr[i+1] = arr[i];
arr[i] = x;
}
return sum(arr,i+1);
}
console.log(sum(array))
function swap(arr, firstIndex, secondIndex){
let a= arr[firstIndex];
arr[firstIndex] = arr[secondIndex];
arr[secondIndex] = a;
return arr;
}
function sortArr(arr, index=0){
if(index == arr.length) return arr;
for(let i=0;i<arr.length; i++){
if(arr[i] > arr[i+1]){
arr = swap(arr, i, i+1);
}
}
return sortArr(arr, index+1);
}
console.log(sortArr([4,1,3,2,0]));
function quicksort(num){
if (num.length < 2){
return num
}
let pivot = num[0];
let slicedArr = num.slice(1);
let left = [];
let right = [];
for(let i = 0; i < slicedArr.length; i++){
if(slicedArr[i] <= pivot){
left.push(slicedArr[i])
}else{
right.push(slicedArr[i])
}
}
return [...quicksort(left), pivot, ...quicksort(right)]
}
I've written a function that finds all sets of two numbers that sum a target value, given a range of numbers from 0 to x. I'm trying to rewrite it in a way so that you can get a result of a given length n (not only 2), but n numbers that will equal a target when added together.
For example, if the range is 1 to 5 and you want to find all sets of three numbers that add up to 7, the answer would be:
[[1,1,5], [1,2,4], [1,3,3], [2,2,3]]
It looks like the solution is to use a recursive function, but I can't quite figure out how to do this. I've looked at several subset-sum examples on StackOverflow, but none seem to match this particular scenario.
This is not a homework problem. Any help would be appreciated. Here is my findPairs function:
function findPairs(arr, target) {
var pairs = [];
var first = 0;
var last = arr.length-1;
while (first <= last) {
var sum = arr[first] + arr[last];
if (sum === target) {
pairs.push([arr[first], arr[last]]);
first ++;
last--;
}
else if (sum < target) {
first++;
}
else {
last--;
}
}
return pairs;
}
var sample = _.range(11);
console.log(JSON.stringify(findPairs(sample,12)));
// Returns
// [[2,10],[3,9],[4,8],[5,7],[6,6]]
This example uses the lodash _.range function. Fiddle here: https://jsfiddle.net/tbarmann/muoms1vL/10/
You could indeed use recursion. Define the third argument as the length of the sub-arrays you are looking for, and define a recursion function inside that function as follows:
function findSums(arr, target, count) {
var result = [];
function recurse(start, leftOver, selection) {
if (leftOver < 0) return; // failure
if (leftOver === 0 && selection.length == count) {
result.push(selection); // add solution
return;
}
for (var i = start; i < arr.length; i++) {
recurse(i, leftOver-arr[i], selection.concat(arr[i]));
}
}
recurse(0, target, []);
return result;
}
// Demo
var result = findSums([1,2,3,4,5], 7, 3);
console.log(result);
.as-console-wrapper { max-height: 100% !important; top: 0; }
Remarks
The solution does not require that the input array has consecutive numbers (range): you might pass it [3,6,4,2,1]. The sub-arrays that are returned will keep the selected elements in order, for example: [3,3,3], [3,4,2] and [6,2,1] could be solutions for targetting 9 with 3 values for that example input.
The numbers must all be non-negative. If negative values are to be allowed, then the optimisation if (leftOver < 0) return; must be removed from the code.
Well, what you are probably looking for is Dynamic Programming. It is an approach where you define mathematically your problem and a recursive solution. Then you try to find a solution, using memoization.
I would make a helper function, where the arguments are (range, target, lengthOfResult). Then do something like:
func helper(arr, target, lengthOfResult){
if(taget == 0) continue;
for(int i=1; i<arr.length-1; i++){
if(taget - arr[i] < 0) return [];
var sub_results = helper(arr, taget - arr[i], lengthOfResult - 1)
foreach(var res in sub_results){
result.concat([arr[i]] + res);
}
}
return result;
}
So you are changing the question for the helper function to "Give me all lists of length-1 which sums up to taget-arr[i]", append to that arr[i]. Then use that to construct the result, for each arr[i].
Basically, every iteration the length will decrease, so the function will terminate at some point. You subtract from the taget whatever number you have now. So you're end result will add up to the desired target.
Note that this algorithm works only with positive numbers. If you can allow negatives, you should remove the if inside the first for-loop.
About the memoization, if you want to allow using each number only once, you could get away with a single array. If you allow reoccurring numbers in the result (like in your example), you probably need a grid; horizontally the target, vertically the lengthOfResult. Then in the beginning of each invocation of the helper method, you check if you already calculated that value. This will save you some recursive calls and make the algorithm not exponential.
function sumPermutations(target, range, number) {
var result = [];
function combo(left, group, sum) {
if(sum > target) return null;
if (left == 0) {
if(sum == target) return group;
return null;
}
for (var i = range.min; i <= range.max; i++) {
var r = combo(left - 1, group.concat(i), sum + i);
if (r)
result.push(r);
}
}
combo(number, [], 0);
return result;
}
console.log(sumPermutations(7, {min: 1, max: 5}, 3));
Note: This gives results with duplicates (all permutaions including those with different orders). You can remove duplicates by sorting the arrays and join thier items and hash them into a hash object.
I have an array of objects. I am trying to find duplicated objects and then remove both instances of that object.
Right now I am using this method:
function checkForDups(data){
for(var i = 0; i < data.length; i++){
for(var j = i+1; j < data.length; j++){
if(data[j].number === data[i].number){
data.splice(j,1);
data.splice(i,1);
}
}
}
return data;
}
I believe problem is that it only checks for duplicates that have an index that greater than the current position it is checking. This means objects that are "behind" it in the array are not checked for duplication. Currently I run the array through this function a few times to get the desired results. However, this is obviously extremely inefficient. How could I achieve my desired results more efficiently?
I believe problem is that it only checks for duplicates that have an index that greater than the current position it is checking. This means objects that are "behind" it in the array are not checked for duplication.
No, that's a simply optimisation, made possible by the symmetry of the equality relation. By searching ahead and removing all duplicates in front of you, any current item can't be a duplicate of a previous one or it would have been already eliminated.
However, there are some things you did not take care of:
When splicing (removing) an item from the array, all subsequent ones are moved, and the array changes its length. To really examine all items in the array, you need decrease (or: not increase) the counter variable when removing, so that the new item which is now in the same spot as the removed one gets visited (the spot from which you just removed needs to get revisited).
You probably want to break the inner loop after having found a duplicate, otherwise you compare and remove totally different items.
You have not made clear what the algorithm should do when there are more than 2 duplicate items of the same sort in the array. Leave one when their number is odd? Thanks for your comment.
To remove all existing duplicates, you will need to continue the search, but must not remove the ith element immediately or you won't have anything to compare to furtheron - or you might even remove the ith item multiple times (see #2).
So this modification should fit:
function removeAllDups(data) {
// leaves only items in the array that appeared a single time
// removes everything whose .number can be found multiple times
for (var i = 0; i < data.length; i++) {
var found = false,
num = data[i].number;
for (var j = i+1; j < data.length; j++) {
if (data[j].number === num) {
found = true;
data.splice(j--, 1);
}
}
if (found) {
data.splice(i--, 1);
}
}
return data;
}
Here's an alternate implementation. This uses only two passes through the array, and removes all dupes in cases > 2: http://jsfiddle.net/nrabinowitz/1pdr780j/
function removeDupes(arr, test) {
test = test || function(a, b) { return a === b; };
function find(cache, element) {
return cache.some(test.bind(null, element));
}
var seen = [];
var dupes = [];
var len = arr.length;
var x;
var current;
// First pass - find dupes
for (x = 0; x < len; x++) {
current = arr[x];
if (find(seen, current)) {
dupes.push(current);
} else {
seen.push(current);
}
}
// Second pass: remove dupes. Reverse iteration saves headaches here
for (x = len - 1; x >= 0; x--) {
current = arr[x];
if (find(dupes, current)) {
arr.splice(x, 1);
}
}
}
This is an updated version that takes an optional test function to determine equality for dupe purposes; for the OP's case, the call would be
removeDupes(arr, function(a, b) {
return a.number == b.number;
});
Note that this assumes support for ES5 methods - Array#some, Function#bind. If you need to support older browsers, an ES5 shim or the Underscore library would fit the bill.
You could use underscore.js:
function checkForDups(data) {
return (
_.map(
_.filter(
_.pairs(
_.countBy(data)
), function(v) {return v[1] == 1}
), function(v) {return ~~v[0]}
)
)
}
Example
>> console.log(checkForDups([0,1,2,3,0,1,0,4]))
[2, 3, 4]
You can try it here.
I want to save all combinations of an array. So for
[a, b, c] I want to save
[ab, ac, ba, bc, ca, cb]
I currently use this method:
for (coordinate in coordinates){
for (coordinate2 in coordinates){
if (coordinate != coordinate2){
newposts.push([fbposts[fbpost].id, coordinates[coordinate], coordinates[coordinate2]]);
}
}
}
but it generates a bunch of duplicates. What's the smoothest way to solve this?
You could use a modified bubble sort algorithm:
var result = [],
arr = 'abc'.split('');
// begin the bubble sort loop
for(var i=0,l=arr.length;i<l-1;i++)
for(var j=i+1;j<l;j++)
{
result.push(arr[i]+arr[j]);
result.push(arr[j]+arr[i]);
}
console.log(result); //["ab", "ba", "ac", "ca", "bc", "cb"]
By looping over the array in this way, you do not even need to check if the result is a duplicate, because it doesn't generate any.
Btw, don't use the for..in synthax for looping over arrays because it may have unexpected results.
Add a check before adding to your new array either by custom function or perhaps
array.indexOf(...)
Custom function similar to how jQuery does it:
function inArray(needle, haystack) {
var length = haystack.length;
for(var i = 0; i < length; i++) {
if(haystack[i] == needle) return true;
}
return false;
}
So as you are building your new array of permutations/combinations (been 13+ years since my last stats class), perform a quick check and don't add if true, otherwise add. I believe if you perform an array merge it'll do similar so same performance.
You could take advantage of the fact that you can define a property only once and have something like this:
$(function() {
var arr = ["a","b","c"];
var permutations ={};
$.each(arr, function(index1, val1)
{
$.each(arr, function(index2, val2)
{
permutations[val1+val2] = 0;
});
});
for(var prop in permutations)
{
//in prop you will have your elements: aa,ab...
}
});
permutations would play the role of a dictionary in this case
The logic of generating the combinations is sub optimal as the run time is n square - see this questions for algorithms of generating combinations of k elements out of an n elements array
I have a JavaScript array like this:
var myData=['237','124','255','124','366','255'];
I need the array elements to be unique and sorted:
myData[0]='124';
myData[1]='237';
myData[2]='255';
myData[3]='366';
Even though the members of array look like integers, they're not integers, since I have already converted each to be string:
var myData[0]=num.toString();
//...and so on.
Is there any way to do all of these tasks in JavaScript?
This is actually very simple. It is much easier to find unique values, if the values are sorted first:
function sort_unique(arr) {
if (arr.length === 0) return arr;
arr = arr.sort(function (a, b) { return a*1 - b*1; });
var ret = [arr[0]];
for (var i = 1; i < arr.length; i++) { //Start loop at 1: arr[0] can never be a duplicate
if (arr[i-1] !== arr[i]) {
ret.push(arr[i]);
}
}
return ret;
}
console.log(sort_unique(['237','124','255','124','366','255']));
//["124", "237", "255", "366"]
You can now achieve the result in just one line of code.
Using new Set to reduce the array to unique set of values.
Apply the sort method after to order the string values.
var myData=['237','124','255','124','366','255']
var uniqueAndSorted = [...new Set(myData)].sort()
UPDATED for newer methods introduced in JavaScript since time of question.
This might be adequate in circumstances where you can't define the function in advance (like in a bookmarklet):
myData.sort().filter(function(el,i,a){return i===a.indexOf(el)})
Here's my (more modern) approach using Array.protoype.reduce():
[2, 1, 2, 3].reduce((a, x) => a.includes(x) ? a : [...a, x], []).sort()
// returns [1, 2, 3]
Edit: More performant version as pointed out in the comments:
arr.sort().filter((x, i, a) => !i || x != a[i-1])
function sort_unique(arr) {
return arr.sort().filter(function(el,i,a) {
return (i==a.indexOf(el));
});
}
How about:
array.sort().filter(function(elem, index, arr) {
return index == arr.length - 1 || arr[index + 1] != elem
})
This is similar to #loostro answer but instead of using indexOf which will reiterate the array for each element to verify that is the first found, it just checks that the next element is different than the current.
Try using an external library like underscore
var f = _.compose(_.uniq, function(array) {
return _.sortBy(array, _.identity);
});
var sortedUnique = f(array);
This relies on _.compose, _.uniq, _.sortBy, _.identity
See live example
What is it doing?
We want a function that takes an array and then returns a sorted array with the non-unique entries removed. This function needs to do two things, sorting and making the array unique.
This is a good job for composition, so we compose the unique & sort function together. _.uniq can just be applied on the array with one argument so it's just passed to _.compose
the _.sortBy function needs a sorting conditional functional. it expects a function that returns a value and the array will be sorted on that value. Since the value that we are ordering it by is the value in the array we can just pass the _.identity function.
We now have a composition of a function that (takes an array and returns a unique array) and a function that (takes an array and returns a sorted array, sorted by their values).
We simply apply the composition on the array and we have our uniquely sorted array.
This function doesn't fail for more than two duplicates values:
function unique(arr) {
var a = [];
var l = arr.length;
for(var i=0; i<l; i++) {
for(var j=i+1; j<l; j++) {
// If a[i] is found later in the array
if (arr[i] === arr[j])
j = ++i;
}
a.push(arr[i]);
}
return a;
};
Here is a simple one liner with O(N), no complicated loops necessary.
> Object.keys(['a', 'b', 'a'].reduce((l, r) => l[r] = l, {})).sort()
[ 'a', 'b' ]
Explanation
Original data set, assume its coming in from an external function
const data = ['a', 'b', 'a']
We want to group all the values onto an object as keys as the method of deduplication. So we use reduce with an object as the default value:
[].reduce(fn, {})
The next step is to create a reduce function which will put the values in the array onto the object. The end result is an object with a unique set of keys.
const reduced = data.reduce((l, r) => l[r] = l, {})
We set l[r] = l because in javascript the value of the assignment expression is returned when an assignment statement is used as an expression. l is the accumulator object and r is the key value. You can also use Object.assign(l, { [r]: (l[r] || 0) + 1 }) or something similar to get the count of each value if that was important to you.
Next we want to get the keys of that object
const keys = Object.keys(reduced)
Then simply use the built-in sort
console.log(keys.sort())
Which is the set of unique values of the original array, sorted
['a', 'b']
The solution in a more elegant way.
var myData=['237','124','255','124','366','255'];
console.log(Array.from(new Set(myData)).sort((a,b) => a - b));
I know the question is very old, but maybe someone will come in handy
A way to use a custom sort function
//func has to return 0 in the case in which they are equal
sort_unique = function(arr,func) {
func = func || function (a, b) {
return a*1 - b*1;
};
arr = arr.sort(func);
var ret = [arr[0]];
for (var i = 1; i < arr.length; i++) {
if (func(arr[i-1],arr[i]) != 0)
ret.push(arr[i]);
}
}
return ret;
}
Example: desc order for an array of objects
MyArray = sort_unique(MyArray , function(a,b){
return b.iterator_internal*1 - a.iterator_internal*1;
});
No redundant "return" array, no ECMA5 built-ins (I'm pretty sure!) and simple to read.
function removeDuplicates(target_array) {
target_array.sort();
var i = 0;
while(i < target_array.length) {
if(target_array[i] === target_array[i+1]) {
target_array.splice(i+1,1);
}
else {
i += 1;
}
}
return target_array;
}
I guess I'll post this answer for some variety. This technique for purging duplicates is something I picked up on for a project in Flash I'm currently working on about a month or so ago.
What you do is make an object and fill it with both a key and a value utilizing each array item. Since duplicate keys are discarded, duplicates are removed.
var nums = [1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 9, 10];
var newNums = purgeArray(nums);
function purgeArray(ar)
{
var obj = {};
var temp = [];
for(var i=0;i<ar.length;i++)
{
obj[ar[i]] = ar[i];
}
for (var item in obj)
{
temp.push(obj[item]);
}
return temp;
}
There's already 5 other answers, so I don't see a need to post a sorting function.
// Another way, that does not rearrange the original Array
// and spends a little less time handling duplicates.
function uniqueSort(arr, sortby){
var A1= arr.slice();
A1= typeof sortby== 'function'? A1.sort(sortby): A1.sort();
var last= A1.shift(), next, A2= [last];
while(A1.length){
next= A1.shift();
while(next=== last) next= A1.shift();
if(next!=undefined){
A2[A2.length]= next;
last= next;
}
}
return A2;
}
var myData= ['237','124','255','124','366','255','100','1000'];
uniqueSort(myData,function(a,b){return a-b})
// the ordinary sort() returns the same array as the number sort here,
// but some strings of digits do not sort so nicely numerical.
function sort() only is only good if your number has same digit, example:
var myData = ["3","11","1","2"]
will return;
var myData = ["1","11","2","3"]
and here improvement for function from mrmonkington
myData.sort().sort(function(a,b){return a - b;}).filter(function(el,i,a){if(i==a.indexOf(el) & el.length>0)return 1;return 0;})
the above function will also delete empty array and you can checkout the demo below
http://jsbin.com/ahojip/2/edit
O[N^2] solutions are bad, especially when the data is already sorted, there is no need to do two nested loops for removing duplicates. One loop and comparing to the previous element will work great.
A simple solution with O[] of sort() would suffice. My solution is:
function sortUnique(arr, compareFunction) {
let sorted = arr.sort(compareFunction);
let result = sorted.filter(compareFunction
? function(val, i, a) { return (i == 0 || compareFunction(a[i-1], val) != 0); }
: function(val, i, a) { return (i == 0 || a[i-1] !== val); }
);
return result;
}
BTW, can do something like this to have Array.sortUnique() method:
Array.prototype.sortUnique = function(compareFunction) {return sortUnique(this, compareFunction); }
Furthermore, sort() could be modified to remove second element if compare() function returns 0 (equal elements), though that code can become messy (need to revise loop boundaries in the flight). Besides, I stay away from making my own sort() functions in interpreted languages, since it will most certainly degrade the performance. So this addition is for the ECMA 2019+ consideration.
The fastest and simpleness way to do this task.
const N = Math.pow(8, 8)
let data = Array.from({length: N}, () => Math.floor(Math.random() * N))
let newData = {}
let len = data.length
// the magic
while (len--) {
newData[data[len]] = true
}
var array = [2,5,4,2,5,9,4,2,6,9,0,5,4,7,8];
var unique_array = [...new Set(array)]; // [ 2, 5, 4, 9, 6, 0, 7, 8 ]
var uniqueWithSorted = unique_array.sort();
console.log(uniqueWithSorted);
output = [ 0, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ]
Here, we used only Set for removing duplicity from the array and then used sort for sorting array in ascending order.
I'm afraid you can't combine these functions, ie. you gotta do something like this:-
myData.unique().sort();
Alternatively you can implement a kind of sortedset (as available in other languages) - which carries both the notion of sorting and removing duplicates, as you require.
Hope this helps.
References:-
Array.sort
Array.unique