This question already has answers here:
Get all unique values in a JavaScript array (remove duplicates)
(91 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I have a very simple JavaScript array that may or may not contain duplicates.
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
I need to remove the duplicates and put the unique values in a new array.
I could point to all the code that I've tried but I think it's useless because they don't work. I accept jQuery solutions too.
Similar question:
Get all non-unique values (i.e.: duplicate/more than one occurrence) in an array
TL;DR
Using the Set constructor and the spread syntax:
uniq = [...new Set(array)];
( Note that var uniq will be an array... new Set() turns it into a set, but [... ] turns it back into an array again )
"Smart" but naïve way
uniqueArray = a.filter(function(item, pos) {
return a.indexOf(item) == pos;
})
Basically, we iterate over the array and, for each element, check if the first position of this element in the array is equal to the current position. Obviously, these two positions are different for duplicate elements.
Using the 3rd ("this array") parameter of the filter callback we can avoid a closure of the array variable:
uniqueArray = a.filter(function(item, pos, self) {
return self.indexOf(item) == pos;
})
Although concise, this algorithm is not particularly efficient for large arrays (quadratic time).
Hashtables to the rescue
function uniq(a) {
var seen = {};
return a.filter(function(item) {
return seen.hasOwnProperty(item) ? false : (seen[item] = true);
});
}
This is how it's usually done. The idea is to place each element in a hashtable and then check for its presence instantly. This gives us linear time, but has at least two drawbacks:
since hash keys can only be strings or symbols in JavaScript, this code doesn't distinguish numbers and "numeric strings". That is, uniq([1,"1"]) will return just [1]
for the same reason, all objects will be considered equal: uniq([{foo:1},{foo:2}]) will return just [{foo:1}].
That said, if your arrays contain only primitives and you don't care about types (e.g. it's always numbers), this solution is optimal.
The best from two worlds
A universal solution combines both approaches: it uses hash lookups for primitives and linear search for objects.
function uniq(a) {
var prims = {"boolean":{}, "number":{}, "string":{}}, objs = [];
return a.filter(function(item) {
var type = typeof item;
if(type in prims)
return prims[type].hasOwnProperty(item) ? false : (prims[type][item] = true);
else
return objs.indexOf(item) >= 0 ? false : objs.push(item);
});
}
sort | uniq
Another option is to sort the array first, and then remove each element equal to the preceding one:
function uniq(a) {
return a.sort().filter(function(item, pos, ary) {
return !pos || item != ary[pos - 1];
});
}
Again, this doesn't work with objects (because all objects are equal for sort). Additionally, we silently change the original array as a side effect - not good! However, if your input is already sorted, this is the way to go (just remove sort from the above).
Unique by...
Sometimes it's desired to uniquify a list based on some criteria other than just equality, for example, to filter out objects that are different, but share some property. This can be done elegantly by passing a callback. This "key" callback is applied to each element, and elements with equal "keys" are removed. Since key is expected to return a primitive, hash table will work fine here:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
var seen = {};
return a.filter(function(item) {
var k = key(item);
return seen.hasOwnProperty(k) ? false : (seen[k] = true);
})
}
A particularly useful key() is JSON.stringify which will remove objects that are physically different, but "look" the same:
a = [[1,2,3], [4,5,6], [1,2,3]]
b = uniqBy(a, JSON.stringify)
console.log(b) // [[1,2,3], [4,5,6]]
If the key is not primitive, you have to resort to the linear search:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
var index = [];
return a.filter(function (item) {
var k = key(item);
return index.indexOf(k) >= 0 ? false : index.push(k);
});
}
In ES6 you can use a Set:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
let seen = new Set();
return a.filter(item => {
let k = key(item);
return seen.has(k) ? false : seen.add(k);
});
}
or a Map:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
return [
...new Map(
a.map(x => [key(x), x])
).values()
]
}
which both also work with non-primitive keys.
First or last?
When removing objects by a key, you might to want to keep the first of "equal" objects or the last one.
Use the Set variant above to keep the first, and the Map to keep the last:
function uniqByKeepFirst(a, key) {
let seen = new Set();
return a.filter(item => {
let k = key(item);
return seen.has(k) ? false : seen.add(k);
});
}
function uniqByKeepLast(a, key) {
return [
...new Map(
a.map(x => [key(x), x])
).values()
]
}
//
data = [
{a:1, u:1},
{a:2, u:2},
{a:3, u:3},
{a:4, u:1},
{a:5, u:2},
{a:6, u:3},
];
console.log(uniqByKeepFirst(data, it => it.u))
console.log(uniqByKeepLast(data, it => it.u))
Libraries
Both underscore and Lo-Dash provide uniq methods. Their algorithms are basically similar to the first snippet above and boil down to this:
var result = [];
a.forEach(function(item) {
if(result.indexOf(item) < 0) {
result.push(item);
}
});
This is quadratic, but there are nice additional goodies, like wrapping native indexOf, ability to uniqify by a key (iteratee in their parlance), and optimizations for already sorted arrays.
If you're using jQuery and can't stand anything without a dollar before it, it goes like this:
$.uniqArray = function(a) {
return $.grep(a, function(item, pos) {
return $.inArray(item, a) === pos;
});
}
which is, again, a variation of the first snippet.
Performance
Function calls are expensive in JavaScript, therefore the above solutions, as concise as they are, are not particularly efficient. For maximal performance, replace filter with a loop and get rid of other function calls:
function uniq_fast(a) {
var seen = {};
var out = [];
var len = a.length;
var j = 0;
for(var i = 0; i < len; i++) {
var item = a[i];
if(seen[item] !== 1) {
seen[item] = 1;
out[j++] = item;
}
}
return out;
}
This chunk of ugly code does the same as the snippet #3 above, but an order of magnitude faster (as of 2017 it's only twice as fast - JS core folks are doing a great job!)
function uniq(a) {
var seen = {};
return a.filter(function(item) {
return seen.hasOwnProperty(item) ? false : (seen[item] = true);
});
}
function uniq_fast(a) {
var seen = {};
var out = [];
var len = a.length;
var j = 0;
for(var i = 0; i < len; i++) {
var item = a[i];
if(seen[item] !== 1) {
seen[item] = 1;
out[j++] = item;
}
}
return out;
}
/////
var r = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9],
a = [],
LEN = 1000,
LOOPS = 1000;
while(LEN--)
a = a.concat(r);
var d = new Date();
for(var i = 0; i < LOOPS; i++)
uniq(a);
document.write('<br>uniq, ms/loop: ' + (new Date() - d)/LOOPS)
var d = new Date();
for(var i = 0; i < LOOPS; i++)
uniq_fast(a);
document.write('<br>uniq_fast, ms/loop: ' + (new Date() - d)/LOOPS)
ES6
ES6 provides the Set object, which makes things a whole lot easier:
function uniq(a) {
return Array.from(new Set(a));
}
or
let uniq = a => [...new Set(a)];
Note that, unlike in python, ES6 sets are iterated in insertion order, so this code preserves the order of the original array.
However, if you need an array with unique elements, why not use sets right from the beginning?
Generators
A "lazy", generator-based version of uniq can be built on the same basis:
take the next value from the argument
if it's been seen already, skip it
otherwise, yield it and add it to the set of already seen values
function* uniqIter(a) {
let seen = new Set();
for (let x of a) {
if (!seen.has(x)) {
seen.add(x);
yield x;
}
}
}
// example:
function* randomsBelow(limit) {
while (1)
yield Math.floor(Math.random() * limit);
}
// note that randomsBelow is endless
count = 20;
limit = 30;
for (let r of uniqIter(randomsBelow(limit))) {
console.log(r);
if (--count === 0)
break
}
// exercise for the reader: what happens if we set `limit` less than `count` and why
Quick and dirty using jQuery:
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
var uniqueNames = [];
$.each(names, function(i, el){
if($.inArray(el, uniqueNames) === -1) uniqueNames.push(el);
});
Got tired of seeing all bad examples with for-loops or jQuery. Javascript has the perfect tools for this nowadays: sort, map and reduce.
Uniq reduce while keeping existing order
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
var uniq = names.reduce(function(a,b){
if (a.indexOf(b) < 0 ) a.push(b);
return a;
},[]);
console.log(uniq, names) // [ 'Mike', 'Matt', 'Nancy', 'Adam', 'Jenny', 'Carl' ]
// one liner
return names.reduce(function(a,b){if(a.indexOf(b)<0)a.push(b);return a;},[]);
Faster uniq with sorting
There are probably faster ways but this one is pretty decent.
var uniq = names.slice() // slice makes copy of array before sorting it
.sort(function(a,b){
return a > b;
})
.reduce(function(a,b){
if (a.slice(-1)[0] !== b) a.push(b); // slice(-1)[0] means last item in array without removing it (like .pop())
return a;
},[]); // this empty array becomes the starting value for a
// one liner
return names.slice().sort(function(a,b){return a > b}).reduce(function(a,b){if (a.slice(-1)[0] !== b) a.push(b);return a;},[]);
Update 2015: ES6 version:
In ES6 you have Sets and Spread which makes it very easy and performant to remove all duplicates:
var uniq = [ ...new Set(names) ]; // [ 'Mike', 'Matt', 'Nancy', 'Adam', 'Jenny', 'Carl' ]
Sort based on occurrence:
Someone asked about ordering the results based on how many unique names there are:
var names = ['Mike', 'Matt', 'Nancy', 'Adam', 'Jenny', 'Nancy', 'Carl']
var uniq = names
.map((name) => {
return {count: 1, name: name}
})
.reduce((a, b) => {
a[b.name] = (a[b.name] || 0) + b.count
return a
}, {})
var sorted = Object.keys(uniq).sort((a, b) => uniq[a] < uniq[b])
console.log(sorted)
Vanilla JS: Remove duplicates using an Object like a Set
You can always try putting it into an object, and then iterating through its keys:
function remove_duplicates(arr) {
var obj = {};
var ret_arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
obj[arr[i]] = true;
}
for (var key in obj) {
ret_arr.push(key);
}
return ret_arr;
}
Vanilla JS: Remove duplicates by tracking already seen values (order-safe)
Or, for an order-safe version, use an object to store all previously seen values, and check values against it before before adding to an array.
function remove_duplicates_safe(arr) {
var seen = {};
var ret_arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
if (!(arr[i] in seen)) {
ret_arr.push(arr[i]);
seen[arr[i]] = true;
}
}
return ret_arr;
}
ECMAScript 6: Use the new Set data structure (order-safe)
ECMAScript 6 adds the new Set Data-Structure, which lets you store values of any type. Set.values returns elements in insertion order.
function remove_duplicates_es6(arr) {
let s = new Set(arr);
let it = s.values();
return Array.from(it);
}
Example usage:
a = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
b = remove_duplicates(a);
// b:
// ["Adam", "Carl", "Jenny", "Matt", "Mike", "Nancy"]
c = remove_duplicates_safe(a);
// c:
// ["Mike", "Matt", "Nancy", "Adam", "Jenny", "Carl"]
d = remove_duplicates_es6(a);
// d:
// ["Mike", "Matt", "Nancy", "Adam", "Jenny", "Carl"]
A single line version using array .filter and .indexOf function:
arr = arr.filter(function (value, index, array) {
return array.indexOf(value) === index;
});
Use Underscore.js
It's a library with a host of functions for manipulating arrays.
It's the tie to go along with jQuery's tux, and Backbone.js's
suspenders.
_.uniq
_.uniq(array, [isSorted], [iterator]) Alias: unique
Produces a duplicate-free version of the array, using === to test object
equality. If you know in advance that the array is sorted, passing
true for isSorted will run a much faster algorithm. If you want to
compute unique items based on a transformation, pass an iterator
function.
Example
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
alert(_.uniq(names, false));
Note: Lo-Dash (an underscore competitor) also offers a comparable .uniq implementation.
One line:
let names = ['Mike','Matt','Nancy','Adam','Jenny','Nancy','Carl', 'Nancy'];
let dup = [...new Set(names)];
console.log(dup);
You can simply do it in JavaScript, with the help of the second - index - parameter of the filter method:
var a = [2,3,4,5,5,4];
a.filter(function(value, index){ return a.indexOf(value) == index });
or in short hand
a.filter((v,i) => a.indexOf(v) == i)
use Array.filter() like this
var actualArr = ['Apple', 'Apple', 'Banana', 'Mango', 'Strawberry', 'Banana'];
console.log('Actual Array: ' + actualArr);
var filteredArr = actualArr.filter(function(item, index) {
if (actualArr.indexOf(item) == index)
return item;
});
console.log('Filtered Array: ' + filteredArr);
this can be made shorter in ES6 to
actualArr.filter((item,index,self) => self.indexOf(item)==index);
Here is nice explanation of Array.filter()
The most concise way to remove duplicates from an array using native javascript functions is to use a sequence like below:
vals.sort().reduce(function(a, b){ if (b != a[0]) a.unshift(b); return a }, [])
there's no need for slice nor indexOf within the reduce function, like i've seen in other examples! it makes sense to use it along with a filter function though:
vals.filter(function(v, i, a){ return i == a.indexOf(v) })
Yet another ES6(2015) way of doing this that already works on a few browsers is:
Array.from(new Set(vals))
or even using the spread operator:
[...new Set(vals)]
cheers!
The top answers have complexity of O(n²), but this can be done with just O(n) by using an object as a hash:
function getDistinctArray(arr) {
var dups = {};
return arr.filter(function(el) {
var hash = el.valueOf();
var isDup = dups[hash];
dups[hash] = true;
return !isDup;
});
}
This will work for strings, numbers, and dates. If your array contains objects, the above solution won't work because when coerced to a string, they will all have a value of "[object Object]" (or something similar) and that isn't suitable as a lookup value. You can get an O(n) implementation for objects by setting a flag on the object itself:
function getDistinctObjArray(arr) {
var distinctArr = arr.filter(function(el) {
var isDup = el.inArray;
el.inArray = true;
return !isDup;
});
distinctArr.forEach(function(el) {
delete el.inArray;
});
return distinctArr;
}
2019 edit: Modern versions of JavaScript make this a much easier problem to solve. Using Set will work, regardless of whether your array contains objects, strings, numbers, or any other type.
function getDistinctArray(arr) {
return [...new Set(arr)];
}
The implementation is so simple, defining a function is no longer warranted.
Simplest One I've run into so far. In es6.
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl", "Mike", "Nancy"]
var noDupe = Array.from(new Set(names))
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Set
In ECMAScript 6 (aka ECMAScript 2015), Set can be used to filter out duplicates. Then it can be converted back to an array using the spread operator.
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"],
unique = [...new Set(names)];
Solution 1
Array.prototype.unique = function() {
var a = [];
for (i = 0; i < this.length; i++) {
var current = this[i];
if (a.indexOf(current) < 0) a.push(current);
}
return a;
}
Solution 2 (using Set)
Array.prototype.unique = function() {
return Array.from(new Set(this));
}
Test
var x=[1,2,3,3,2,1];
x.unique() //[1,2,3]
Performance
When I tested both implementation (with and without Set) for performance in chrome, I found that the one with Set is much much faster!
Array.prototype.unique1 = function() {
var a = [];
for (i = 0; i < this.length; i++) {
var current = this[i];
if (a.indexOf(current) < 0) a.push(current);
}
return a;
}
Array.prototype.unique2 = function() {
return Array.from(new Set(this));
}
var x=[];
for(var i=0;i<10000;i++){
x.push("x"+i);x.push("x"+(i+1));
}
console.time("unique1");
console.log(x.unique1());
console.timeEnd("unique1");
console.time("unique2");
console.log(x.unique2());
console.timeEnd("unique2");
Go for this one:
var uniqueArray = duplicateArray.filter(function(elem, pos) {
return duplicateArray.indexOf(elem) == pos;
});
Now uniqueArray contains no duplicates.
The following is more than 80% faster than the jQuery method listed (see tests below).
It is an answer from a similar question a few years ago. If I come across the person who originally proposed it I will post credit.
Pure JS.
var temp = {};
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++)
temp[array[i]] = true;
var r = [];
for (var k in temp)
r.push(k);
return r;
My test case comparison:
http://jsperf.com/remove-duplicate-array-tests
I had done a detailed comparison of dupes removal at some other question but having noticed that this is the real place i just wanted to share it here as well.
I believe this is the best way to do this
var myArray = [100, 200, 100, 200, 100, 100, 200, 200, 200, 200],
reduced = Object.keys(myArray.reduce((p,c) => (p[c] = true,p),{}));
console.log(reduced);
OK .. even though this one is O(n) and the others are O(n^2) i was curious to see benchmark comparison between this reduce / look up table and filter/indexOf combo (I choose Jeetendras very nice implementation https://stackoverflow.com/a/37441144/4543207). I prepare a 100K item array filled with random positive integers in range 0-9999 and and it removes the duplicates. I repeat the test for 10 times and the average of the results show that they are no match in performance.
In firefox v47 reduce & lut : 14.85ms vs filter & indexOf : 2836ms
In chrome v51 reduce & lut : 23.90ms vs filter & indexOf : 1066ms
Well ok so far so good. But let's do it properly this time in the ES6 style. It looks so cool..! But as of now how it will perform against the powerful lut solution is a mystery to me. Lets first see the code and then benchmark it.
var myArray = [100, 200, 100, 200, 100, 100, 200, 200, 200, 200],
reduced = [...myArray.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()];
console.log(reduced);
Wow that was short..! But how about the performance..? It's beautiful... Since the heavy weight of the filter / indexOf lifted over our shoulders now i can test an array 1M random items of positive integers in range 0..99999 to get an average from 10 consecutive tests. I can say this time it's a real match. See the result for yourself :)
var ranar = [],
red1 = a => Object.keys(a.reduce((p,c) => (p[c] = true,p),{})),
red2 = a => reduced = [...a.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()],
avg1 = [],
avg2 = [],
ts = 0,
te = 0,
res1 = [],
res2 = [],
count= 10;
for (var i = 0; i<count; i++){
ranar = (new Array(1000000).fill(true)).map(e => Math.floor(Math.random()*100000));
ts = performance.now();
res1 = red1(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg1.push(te-ts);
ts = performance.now();
res2 = red2(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg2.push(te-ts);
}
avg1 = avg1.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
avg2 = avg2.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
console.log("reduce & lut took: " + avg1 + "msec");
console.log("map & spread took: " + avg2 + "msec");
Which one would you use..? Well not so fast...! Don't be deceived. Map is at displacement. Now look... in all of the above cases we fill an array of size n with numbers of range < n. I mean we have an array of size 100 and we fill with random numbers 0..9 so there are definite duplicates and "almost" definitely each number has a duplicate. How about if we fill the array in size 100 with random numbers 0..9999. Let's now see Map playing at home. This time an Array of 100K items but random number range is 0..100M. We will do 100 consecutive tests to average the results. OK let's see the bets..! <- no typo
var ranar = [],
red1 = a => Object.keys(a.reduce((p,c) => (p[c] = true,p),{})),
red2 = a => reduced = [...a.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()],
avg1 = [],
avg2 = [],
ts = 0,
te = 0,
res1 = [],
res2 = [],
count= 100;
for (var i = 0; i<count; i++){
ranar = (new Array(100000).fill(true)).map(e => Math.floor(Math.random()*100000000));
ts = performance.now();
res1 = red1(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg1.push(te-ts);
ts = performance.now();
res2 = red2(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg2.push(te-ts);
}
avg1 = avg1.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
avg2 = avg2.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
console.log("reduce & lut took: " + avg1 + "msec");
console.log("map & spread took: " + avg2 + "msec");
Now this is the spectacular comeback of Map()..! May be now you can make a better decision when you want to remove the dupes.
Well ok we are all happy now. But the lead role always comes last with some applause. I am sure some of you wonder what Set object would do. Now that since we are open to ES6 and we know Map is the winner of the previous games let us compare Map with Set as a final. A typical Real Madrid vs Barcelona game this time... or is it? Let's see who will win the el classico :)
var ranar = [],
red1 = a => reduced = [...a.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()],
red2 = a => Array.from(new Set(a)),
avg1 = [],
avg2 = [],
ts = 0,
te = 0,
res1 = [],
res2 = [],
count= 100;
for (var i = 0; i<count; i++){
ranar = (new Array(100000).fill(true)).map(e => Math.floor(Math.random()*10000000));
ts = performance.now();
res1 = red1(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg1.push(te-ts);
ts = performance.now();
res2 = red2(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg2.push(te-ts);
}
avg1 = avg1.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
avg2 = avg2.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
console.log("map & spread took: " + avg1 + "msec");
console.log("set & A.from took: " + avg2 + "msec");
Wow.. man..! Well unexpectedly it didn't turn out to be an el classico at all. More like Barcelona FC against CA Osasuna :))
Here is a simple answer to the question.
var names = ["Alex","Tony","James","Suzane", "Marie", "Laurence", "Alex", "Suzane", "Marie", "Marie", "James", "Tony", "Alex"];
var uniqueNames = [];
for(var i in names){
if(uniqueNames.indexOf(names[i]) === -1){
uniqueNames.push(names[i]);
}
}
A simple but effective technique, is to use the filter method in combination with the filter function(value, index){ return this.indexOf(value) == index }.
Code example :
var data = [2,3,4,5,5,4];
var filter = function(value, index){ return this.indexOf(value) == index };
var filteredData = data.filter(filter, data );
document.body.innerHTML = '<pre>' + JSON.stringify(filteredData, null, '\t') + '</pre>';
See also this Fiddle.
So the options is:
let a = [11,22,11,22];
let b = []
b = [ ...new Set(a) ];
// b = [11, 22]
b = Array.from( new Set(a))
// b = [11, 22]
b = a.filter((val,i)=>{
return a.indexOf(val)==i
})
// b = [11, 22]
Here is very simple for understanding and working anywhere (even in PhotoshopScript) code. Check it!
var peoplenames = new Array("Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl");
peoplenames = unique(peoplenames);
alert(peoplenames);
function unique(array){
var len = array.length;
for(var i = 0; i < len; i++) for(var j = i + 1; j < len; j++)
if(array[j] == array[i]){
array.splice(j,1);
j--;
len--;
}
return array;
}
//*result* peoplenames == ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Carl"]
here is the simple method without any special libraries are special function,
name_list = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
get_uniq = name_list.filter(function(val,ind) { return name_list.indexOf(val) == ind; })
console.log("Original name list:"+name_list.length, name_list)
console.log("\n Unique name list:"+get_uniq.length, get_uniq)
Apart from being a simpler, more terse solution than the current answers (minus the future-looking ES6 ones), I perf tested this and it was much faster as well:
var uniqueArray = dupeArray.filter(function(item, i, self){
return self.lastIndexOf(item) == i;
});
One caveat: Array.lastIndexOf() was added in IE9, so if you need to go lower than that, you'll need to look elsewhere.
Generic Functional Approach
Here is a generic and strictly functional approach with ES2015:
// small, reusable auxiliary functions
const apply = f => a => f(a);
const flip = f => b => a => f(a) (b);
const uncurry = f => (a, b) => f(a) (b);
const push = x => xs => (xs.push(x), xs);
const foldl = f => acc => xs => xs.reduce(uncurry(f), acc);
const some = f => xs => xs.some(apply(f));
// the actual de-duplicate function
const uniqueBy = f => foldl(
acc => x => some(f(x)) (acc)
? acc
: push(x) (acc)
) ([]);
// comparators
const eq = y => x => x === y;
// string equality case insensitive :D
const seqCI = y => x => x.toLowerCase() === y.toLowerCase();
// mock data
const xs = [1,2,3,1,2,3,4];
const ys = ["a", "b", "c", "A", "B", "C", "D"];
console.log( uniqueBy(eq) (xs) );
console.log( uniqueBy(seqCI) (ys) );
We can easily derive unique from unqiueBy or use the faster implementation utilizing Sets:
const unqiue = uniqueBy(eq);
// const unique = xs => Array.from(new Set(xs));
Benefits of this approach:
generic solution by using a separate comparator function
declarative and succinct implementation
reuse of other small, generic functions
Performance Considerations
uniqueBy isn't as fast as an imperative implementation with loops, but it is way more expressive due to its genericity.
If you identify uniqueBy as the cause of a concrete performance penalty in your app, replace it with optimized code. That is, write your code first in an functional, declarative way. Afterwards, provided that you encounter performance issues, try to optimize the code at the locations, which are the cause of the problem.
Memory Consumption and Garbage Collection
uniqueBy utilizes mutations (push(x) (acc)) hidden inside its body. It reuses the accumulator instead of throwing it away after each iteration. This reduces memory consumption and GC pressure. Since this side effect is wrapped inside the function, everything outside remains pure.
for (i=0; i<originalArray.length; i++) {
if (!newArray.includes(originalArray[i])) {
newArray.push(originalArray[i]);
}
}
The following script returns a new array containing only unique values. It works on string and numbers. No requirement for additional libraries only vanilla JS.
Browser support:
Feature Chrome Firefox (Gecko) Internet Explorer Opera Safari
Basic support (Yes) 1.5 (1.8) 9 (Yes) (Yes)
https://jsfiddle.net/fzmcgcxv/3/
var duplicates = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl","Mike","Mike","Nancy","Carl"];
var unique = duplicates.filter(function(elem, pos) {
return duplicates.indexOf(elem) == pos;
});
alert(unique);
If by any chance you were using
D3.js
You could do
d3.set(["foo", "bar", "foo", "baz"]).values() ==> ["foo", "bar", "baz"]
https://github.com/mbostock/d3/wiki/Arrays#set_values
A slight modification of thg435's excellent answer to use a custom comparator:
function contains(array, obj) {
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
if (isEqual(array[i], obj)) return true;
}
return false;
}
//comparator
function isEqual(obj1, obj2) {
if (obj1.name == obj2.name) return true;
return false;
}
function removeDuplicates(ary) {
var arr = [];
return ary.filter(function(x) {
return !contains(arr, x) && arr.push(x);
});
}
$(document).ready(function() {
var arr1=["dog","dog","fish","cat","cat","fish","apple","orange"]
var arr2=["cat","fish","mango","apple"]
var uniquevalue=[];
var seconduniquevalue=[];
var finalarray=[];
$.each(arr1,function(key,value){
if($.inArray (value,uniquevalue) === -1)
{
uniquevalue.push(value)
}
});
$.each(arr2,function(key,value){
if($.inArray (value,seconduniquevalue) === -1)
{
seconduniquevalue.push(value)
}
});
$.each(uniquevalue,function(ikey,ivalue){
$.each(seconduniquevalue,function(ukey,uvalue){
if( ivalue == uvalue)
{
finalarray.push(ivalue);
}
});
});
alert(finalarray);
});
https://jsfiddle.net/2w0k5tz8/
function remove_duplicates(array_){
var ret_array = new Array();
for (var a = array_.length - 1; a >= 0; a--) {
for (var b = array_.length - 1; b >= 0; b--) {
if(array_[a] == array_[b] && a != b){
delete array_[b];
}
};
if(array_[a] != undefined)
ret_array.push(array_[a]);
};
return ret_array;
}
console.log(remove_duplicates(Array(1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3)));
Loop through, remove duplicates, and create a clone array place holder because the array index will not be updated.
Loop backward for better performance ( your loop wont need to keep checking the length of your array)
Related
This question already has answers here:
Get all unique values in a JavaScript array (remove duplicates)
(91 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I have a very simple JavaScript array that may or may not contain duplicates.
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
I need to remove the duplicates and put the unique values in a new array.
I could point to all the code that I've tried but I think it's useless because they don't work. I accept jQuery solutions too.
Similar question:
Get all non-unique values (i.e.: duplicate/more than one occurrence) in an array
TL;DR
Using the Set constructor and the spread syntax:
uniq = [...new Set(array)];
( Note that var uniq will be an array... new Set() turns it into a set, but [... ] turns it back into an array again )
"Smart" but naïve way
uniqueArray = a.filter(function(item, pos) {
return a.indexOf(item) == pos;
})
Basically, we iterate over the array and, for each element, check if the first position of this element in the array is equal to the current position. Obviously, these two positions are different for duplicate elements.
Using the 3rd ("this array") parameter of the filter callback we can avoid a closure of the array variable:
uniqueArray = a.filter(function(item, pos, self) {
return self.indexOf(item) == pos;
})
Although concise, this algorithm is not particularly efficient for large arrays (quadratic time).
Hashtables to the rescue
function uniq(a) {
var seen = {};
return a.filter(function(item) {
return seen.hasOwnProperty(item) ? false : (seen[item] = true);
});
}
This is how it's usually done. The idea is to place each element in a hashtable and then check for its presence instantly. This gives us linear time, but has at least two drawbacks:
since hash keys can only be strings or symbols in JavaScript, this code doesn't distinguish numbers and "numeric strings". That is, uniq([1,"1"]) will return just [1]
for the same reason, all objects will be considered equal: uniq([{foo:1},{foo:2}]) will return just [{foo:1}].
That said, if your arrays contain only primitives and you don't care about types (e.g. it's always numbers), this solution is optimal.
The best from two worlds
A universal solution combines both approaches: it uses hash lookups for primitives and linear search for objects.
function uniq(a) {
var prims = {"boolean":{}, "number":{}, "string":{}}, objs = [];
return a.filter(function(item) {
var type = typeof item;
if(type in prims)
return prims[type].hasOwnProperty(item) ? false : (prims[type][item] = true);
else
return objs.indexOf(item) >= 0 ? false : objs.push(item);
});
}
sort | uniq
Another option is to sort the array first, and then remove each element equal to the preceding one:
function uniq(a) {
return a.sort().filter(function(item, pos, ary) {
return !pos || item != ary[pos - 1];
});
}
Again, this doesn't work with objects (because all objects are equal for sort). Additionally, we silently change the original array as a side effect - not good! However, if your input is already sorted, this is the way to go (just remove sort from the above).
Unique by...
Sometimes it's desired to uniquify a list based on some criteria other than just equality, for example, to filter out objects that are different, but share some property. This can be done elegantly by passing a callback. This "key" callback is applied to each element, and elements with equal "keys" are removed. Since key is expected to return a primitive, hash table will work fine here:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
var seen = {};
return a.filter(function(item) {
var k = key(item);
return seen.hasOwnProperty(k) ? false : (seen[k] = true);
})
}
A particularly useful key() is JSON.stringify which will remove objects that are physically different, but "look" the same:
a = [[1,2,3], [4,5,6], [1,2,3]]
b = uniqBy(a, JSON.stringify)
console.log(b) // [[1,2,3], [4,5,6]]
If the key is not primitive, you have to resort to the linear search:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
var index = [];
return a.filter(function (item) {
var k = key(item);
return index.indexOf(k) >= 0 ? false : index.push(k);
});
}
In ES6 you can use a Set:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
let seen = new Set();
return a.filter(item => {
let k = key(item);
return seen.has(k) ? false : seen.add(k);
});
}
or a Map:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
return [
...new Map(
a.map(x => [key(x), x])
).values()
]
}
which both also work with non-primitive keys.
First or last?
When removing objects by a key, you might to want to keep the first of "equal" objects or the last one.
Use the Set variant above to keep the first, and the Map to keep the last:
function uniqByKeepFirst(a, key) {
let seen = new Set();
return a.filter(item => {
let k = key(item);
return seen.has(k) ? false : seen.add(k);
});
}
function uniqByKeepLast(a, key) {
return [
...new Map(
a.map(x => [key(x), x])
).values()
]
}
//
data = [
{a:1, u:1},
{a:2, u:2},
{a:3, u:3},
{a:4, u:1},
{a:5, u:2},
{a:6, u:3},
];
console.log(uniqByKeepFirst(data, it => it.u))
console.log(uniqByKeepLast(data, it => it.u))
Libraries
Both underscore and Lo-Dash provide uniq methods. Their algorithms are basically similar to the first snippet above and boil down to this:
var result = [];
a.forEach(function(item) {
if(result.indexOf(item) < 0) {
result.push(item);
}
});
This is quadratic, but there are nice additional goodies, like wrapping native indexOf, ability to uniqify by a key (iteratee in their parlance), and optimizations for already sorted arrays.
If you're using jQuery and can't stand anything without a dollar before it, it goes like this:
$.uniqArray = function(a) {
return $.grep(a, function(item, pos) {
return $.inArray(item, a) === pos;
});
}
which is, again, a variation of the first snippet.
Performance
Function calls are expensive in JavaScript, therefore the above solutions, as concise as they are, are not particularly efficient. For maximal performance, replace filter with a loop and get rid of other function calls:
function uniq_fast(a) {
var seen = {};
var out = [];
var len = a.length;
var j = 0;
for(var i = 0; i < len; i++) {
var item = a[i];
if(seen[item] !== 1) {
seen[item] = 1;
out[j++] = item;
}
}
return out;
}
This chunk of ugly code does the same as the snippet #3 above, but an order of magnitude faster (as of 2017 it's only twice as fast - JS core folks are doing a great job!)
function uniq(a) {
var seen = {};
return a.filter(function(item) {
return seen.hasOwnProperty(item) ? false : (seen[item] = true);
});
}
function uniq_fast(a) {
var seen = {};
var out = [];
var len = a.length;
var j = 0;
for(var i = 0; i < len; i++) {
var item = a[i];
if(seen[item] !== 1) {
seen[item] = 1;
out[j++] = item;
}
}
return out;
}
/////
var r = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9],
a = [],
LEN = 1000,
LOOPS = 1000;
while(LEN--)
a = a.concat(r);
var d = new Date();
for(var i = 0; i < LOOPS; i++)
uniq(a);
document.write('<br>uniq, ms/loop: ' + (new Date() - d)/LOOPS)
var d = new Date();
for(var i = 0; i < LOOPS; i++)
uniq_fast(a);
document.write('<br>uniq_fast, ms/loop: ' + (new Date() - d)/LOOPS)
ES6
ES6 provides the Set object, which makes things a whole lot easier:
function uniq(a) {
return Array.from(new Set(a));
}
or
let uniq = a => [...new Set(a)];
Note that, unlike in python, ES6 sets are iterated in insertion order, so this code preserves the order of the original array.
However, if you need an array with unique elements, why not use sets right from the beginning?
Generators
A "lazy", generator-based version of uniq can be built on the same basis:
take the next value from the argument
if it's been seen already, skip it
otherwise, yield it and add it to the set of already seen values
function* uniqIter(a) {
let seen = new Set();
for (let x of a) {
if (!seen.has(x)) {
seen.add(x);
yield x;
}
}
}
// example:
function* randomsBelow(limit) {
while (1)
yield Math.floor(Math.random() * limit);
}
// note that randomsBelow is endless
count = 20;
limit = 30;
for (let r of uniqIter(randomsBelow(limit))) {
console.log(r);
if (--count === 0)
break
}
// exercise for the reader: what happens if we set `limit` less than `count` and why
Quick and dirty using jQuery:
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
var uniqueNames = [];
$.each(names, function(i, el){
if($.inArray(el, uniqueNames) === -1) uniqueNames.push(el);
});
Got tired of seeing all bad examples with for-loops or jQuery. Javascript has the perfect tools for this nowadays: sort, map and reduce.
Uniq reduce while keeping existing order
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
var uniq = names.reduce(function(a,b){
if (a.indexOf(b) < 0 ) a.push(b);
return a;
},[]);
console.log(uniq, names) // [ 'Mike', 'Matt', 'Nancy', 'Adam', 'Jenny', 'Carl' ]
// one liner
return names.reduce(function(a,b){if(a.indexOf(b)<0)a.push(b);return a;},[]);
Faster uniq with sorting
There are probably faster ways but this one is pretty decent.
var uniq = names.slice() // slice makes copy of array before sorting it
.sort(function(a,b){
return a > b;
})
.reduce(function(a,b){
if (a.slice(-1)[0] !== b) a.push(b); // slice(-1)[0] means last item in array without removing it (like .pop())
return a;
},[]); // this empty array becomes the starting value for a
// one liner
return names.slice().sort(function(a,b){return a > b}).reduce(function(a,b){if (a.slice(-1)[0] !== b) a.push(b);return a;},[]);
Update 2015: ES6 version:
In ES6 you have Sets and Spread which makes it very easy and performant to remove all duplicates:
var uniq = [ ...new Set(names) ]; // [ 'Mike', 'Matt', 'Nancy', 'Adam', 'Jenny', 'Carl' ]
Sort based on occurrence:
Someone asked about ordering the results based on how many unique names there are:
var names = ['Mike', 'Matt', 'Nancy', 'Adam', 'Jenny', 'Nancy', 'Carl']
var uniq = names
.map((name) => {
return {count: 1, name: name}
})
.reduce((a, b) => {
a[b.name] = (a[b.name] || 0) + b.count
return a
}, {})
var sorted = Object.keys(uniq).sort((a, b) => uniq[a] < uniq[b])
console.log(sorted)
Vanilla JS: Remove duplicates using an Object like a Set
You can always try putting it into an object, and then iterating through its keys:
function remove_duplicates(arr) {
var obj = {};
var ret_arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
obj[arr[i]] = true;
}
for (var key in obj) {
ret_arr.push(key);
}
return ret_arr;
}
Vanilla JS: Remove duplicates by tracking already seen values (order-safe)
Or, for an order-safe version, use an object to store all previously seen values, and check values against it before before adding to an array.
function remove_duplicates_safe(arr) {
var seen = {};
var ret_arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
if (!(arr[i] in seen)) {
ret_arr.push(arr[i]);
seen[arr[i]] = true;
}
}
return ret_arr;
}
ECMAScript 6: Use the new Set data structure (order-safe)
ECMAScript 6 adds the new Set Data-Structure, which lets you store values of any type. Set.values returns elements in insertion order.
function remove_duplicates_es6(arr) {
let s = new Set(arr);
let it = s.values();
return Array.from(it);
}
Example usage:
a = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
b = remove_duplicates(a);
// b:
// ["Adam", "Carl", "Jenny", "Matt", "Mike", "Nancy"]
c = remove_duplicates_safe(a);
// c:
// ["Mike", "Matt", "Nancy", "Adam", "Jenny", "Carl"]
d = remove_duplicates_es6(a);
// d:
// ["Mike", "Matt", "Nancy", "Adam", "Jenny", "Carl"]
A single line version using array .filter and .indexOf function:
arr = arr.filter(function (value, index, array) {
return array.indexOf(value) === index;
});
Use Underscore.js
It's a library with a host of functions for manipulating arrays.
It's the tie to go along with jQuery's tux, and Backbone.js's
suspenders.
_.uniq
_.uniq(array, [isSorted], [iterator]) Alias: unique
Produces a duplicate-free version of the array, using === to test object
equality. If you know in advance that the array is sorted, passing
true for isSorted will run a much faster algorithm. If you want to
compute unique items based on a transformation, pass an iterator
function.
Example
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
alert(_.uniq(names, false));
Note: Lo-Dash (an underscore competitor) also offers a comparable .uniq implementation.
One line:
let names = ['Mike','Matt','Nancy','Adam','Jenny','Nancy','Carl', 'Nancy'];
let dup = [...new Set(names)];
console.log(dup);
You can simply do it in JavaScript, with the help of the second - index - parameter of the filter method:
var a = [2,3,4,5,5,4];
a.filter(function(value, index){ return a.indexOf(value) == index });
or in short hand
a.filter((v,i) => a.indexOf(v) == i)
use Array.filter() like this
var actualArr = ['Apple', 'Apple', 'Banana', 'Mango', 'Strawberry', 'Banana'];
console.log('Actual Array: ' + actualArr);
var filteredArr = actualArr.filter(function(item, index) {
if (actualArr.indexOf(item) == index)
return item;
});
console.log('Filtered Array: ' + filteredArr);
this can be made shorter in ES6 to
actualArr.filter((item,index,self) => self.indexOf(item)==index);
Here is nice explanation of Array.filter()
The most concise way to remove duplicates from an array using native javascript functions is to use a sequence like below:
vals.sort().reduce(function(a, b){ if (b != a[0]) a.unshift(b); return a }, [])
there's no need for slice nor indexOf within the reduce function, like i've seen in other examples! it makes sense to use it along with a filter function though:
vals.filter(function(v, i, a){ return i == a.indexOf(v) })
Yet another ES6(2015) way of doing this that already works on a few browsers is:
Array.from(new Set(vals))
or even using the spread operator:
[...new Set(vals)]
cheers!
The top answers have complexity of O(n²), but this can be done with just O(n) by using an object as a hash:
function getDistinctArray(arr) {
var dups = {};
return arr.filter(function(el) {
var hash = el.valueOf();
var isDup = dups[hash];
dups[hash] = true;
return !isDup;
});
}
This will work for strings, numbers, and dates. If your array contains objects, the above solution won't work because when coerced to a string, they will all have a value of "[object Object]" (or something similar) and that isn't suitable as a lookup value. You can get an O(n) implementation for objects by setting a flag on the object itself:
function getDistinctObjArray(arr) {
var distinctArr = arr.filter(function(el) {
var isDup = el.inArray;
el.inArray = true;
return !isDup;
});
distinctArr.forEach(function(el) {
delete el.inArray;
});
return distinctArr;
}
2019 edit: Modern versions of JavaScript make this a much easier problem to solve. Using Set will work, regardless of whether your array contains objects, strings, numbers, or any other type.
function getDistinctArray(arr) {
return [...new Set(arr)];
}
The implementation is so simple, defining a function is no longer warranted.
Simplest One I've run into so far. In es6.
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl", "Mike", "Nancy"]
var noDupe = Array.from(new Set(names))
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Set
In ECMAScript 6 (aka ECMAScript 2015), Set can be used to filter out duplicates. Then it can be converted back to an array using the spread operator.
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"],
unique = [...new Set(names)];
Solution 1
Array.prototype.unique = function() {
var a = [];
for (i = 0; i < this.length; i++) {
var current = this[i];
if (a.indexOf(current) < 0) a.push(current);
}
return a;
}
Solution 2 (using Set)
Array.prototype.unique = function() {
return Array.from(new Set(this));
}
Test
var x=[1,2,3,3,2,1];
x.unique() //[1,2,3]
Performance
When I tested both implementation (with and without Set) for performance in chrome, I found that the one with Set is much much faster!
Array.prototype.unique1 = function() {
var a = [];
for (i = 0; i < this.length; i++) {
var current = this[i];
if (a.indexOf(current) < 0) a.push(current);
}
return a;
}
Array.prototype.unique2 = function() {
return Array.from(new Set(this));
}
var x=[];
for(var i=0;i<10000;i++){
x.push("x"+i);x.push("x"+(i+1));
}
console.time("unique1");
console.log(x.unique1());
console.timeEnd("unique1");
console.time("unique2");
console.log(x.unique2());
console.timeEnd("unique2");
Go for this one:
var uniqueArray = duplicateArray.filter(function(elem, pos) {
return duplicateArray.indexOf(elem) == pos;
});
Now uniqueArray contains no duplicates.
The following is more than 80% faster than the jQuery method listed (see tests below).
It is an answer from a similar question a few years ago. If I come across the person who originally proposed it I will post credit.
Pure JS.
var temp = {};
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++)
temp[array[i]] = true;
var r = [];
for (var k in temp)
r.push(k);
return r;
My test case comparison:
http://jsperf.com/remove-duplicate-array-tests
I had done a detailed comparison of dupes removal at some other question but having noticed that this is the real place i just wanted to share it here as well.
I believe this is the best way to do this
var myArray = [100, 200, 100, 200, 100, 100, 200, 200, 200, 200],
reduced = Object.keys(myArray.reduce((p,c) => (p[c] = true,p),{}));
console.log(reduced);
OK .. even though this one is O(n) and the others are O(n^2) i was curious to see benchmark comparison between this reduce / look up table and filter/indexOf combo (I choose Jeetendras very nice implementation https://stackoverflow.com/a/37441144/4543207). I prepare a 100K item array filled with random positive integers in range 0-9999 and and it removes the duplicates. I repeat the test for 10 times and the average of the results show that they are no match in performance.
In firefox v47 reduce & lut : 14.85ms vs filter & indexOf : 2836ms
In chrome v51 reduce & lut : 23.90ms vs filter & indexOf : 1066ms
Well ok so far so good. But let's do it properly this time in the ES6 style. It looks so cool..! But as of now how it will perform against the powerful lut solution is a mystery to me. Lets first see the code and then benchmark it.
var myArray = [100, 200, 100, 200, 100, 100, 200, 200, 200, 200],
reduced = [...myArray.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()];
console.log(reduced);
Wow that was short..! But how about the performance..? It's beautiful... Since the heavy weight of the filter / indexOf lifted over our shoulders now i can test an array 1M random items of positive integers in range 0..99999 to get an average from 10 consecutive tests. I can say this time it's a real match. See the result for yourself :)
var ranar = [],
red1 = a => Object.keys(a.reduce((p,c) => (p[c] = true,p),{})),
red2 = a => reduced = [...a.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()],
avg1 = [],
avg2 = [],
ts = 0,
te = 0,
res1 = [],
res2 = [],
count= 10;
for (var i = 0; i<count; i++){
ranar = (new Array(1000000).fill(true)).map(e => Math.floor(Math.random()*100000));
ts = performance.now();
res1 = red1(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg1.push(te-ts);
ts = performance.now();
res2 = red2(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg2.push(te-ts);
}
avg1 = avg1.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
avg2 = avg2.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
console.log("reduce & lut took: " + avg1 + "msec");
console.log("map & spread took: " + avg2 + "msec");
Which one would you use..? Well not so fast...! Don't be deceived. Map is at displacement. Now look... in all of the above cases we fill an array of size n with numbers of range < n. I mean we have an array of size 100 and we fill with random numbers 0..9 so there are definite duplicates and "almost" definitely each number has a duplicate. How about if we fill the array in size 100 with random numbers 0..9999. Let's now see Map playing at home. This time an Array of 100K items but random number range is 0..100M. We will do 100 consecutive tests to average the results. OK let's see the bets..! <- no typo
var ranar = [],
red1 = a => Object.keys(a.reduce((p,c) => (p[c] = true,p),{})),
red2 = a => reduced = [...a.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()],
avg1 = [],
avg2 = [],
ts = 0,
te = 0,
res1 = [],
res2 = [],
count= 100;
for (var i = 0; i<count; i++){
ranar = (new Array(100000).fill(true)).map(e => Math.floor(Math.random()*100000000));
ts = performance.now();
res1 = red1(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg1.push(te-ts);
ts = performance.now();
res2 = red2(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg2.push(te-ts);
}
avg1 = avg1.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
avg2 = avg2.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
console.log("reduce & lut took: " + avg1 + "msec");
console.log("map & spread took: " + avg2 + "msec");
Now this is the spectacular comeback of Map()..! May be now you can make a better decision when you want to remove the dupes.
Well ok we are all happy now. But the lead role always comes last with some applause. I am sure some of you wonder what Set object would do. Now that since we are open to ES6 and we know Map is the winner of the previous games let us compare Map with Set as a final. A typical Real Madrid vs Barcelona game this time... or is it? Let's see who will win the el classico :)
var ranar = [],
red1 = a => reduced = [...a.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()],
red2 = a => Array.from(new Set(a)),
avg1 = [],
avg2 = [],
ts = 0,
te = 0,
res1 = [],
res2 = [],
count= 100;
for (var i = 0; i<count; i++){
ranar = (new Array(100000).fill(true)).map(e => Math.floor(Math.random()*10000000));
ts = performance.now();
res1 = red1(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg1.push(te-ts);
ts = performance.now();
res2 = red2(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg2.push(te-ts);
}
avg1 = avg1.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
avg2 = avg2.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
console.log("map & spread took: " + avg1 + "msec");
console.log("set & A.from took: " + avg2 + "msec");
Wow.. man..! Well unexpectedly it didn't turn out to be an el classico at all. More like Barcelona FC against CA Osasuna :))
Here is a simple answer to the question.
var names = ["Alex","Tony","James","Suzane", "Marie", "Laurence", "Alex", "Suzane", "Marie", "Marie", "James", "Tony", "Alex"];
var uniqueNames = [];
for(var i in names){
if(uniqueNames.indexOf(names[i]) === -1){
uniqueNames.push(names[i]);
}
}
A simple but effective technique, is to use the filter method in combination with the filter function(value, index){ return this.indexOf(value) == index }.
Code example :
var data = [2,3,4,5,5,4];
var filter = function(value, index){ return this.indexOf(value) == index };
var filteredData = data.filter(filter, data );
document.body.innerHTML = '<pre>' + JSON.stringify(filteredData, null, '\t') + '</pre>';
See also this Fiddle.
So the options is:
let a = [11,22,11,22];
let b = []
b = [ ...new Set(a) ];
// b = [11, 22]
b = Array.from( new Set(a))
// b = [11, 22]
b = a.filter((val,i)=>{
return a.indexOf(val)==i
})
// b = [11, 22]
Here is very simple for understanding and working anywhere (even in PhotoshopScript) code. Check it!
var peoplenames = new Array("Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl");
peoplenames = unique(peoplenames);
alert(peoplenames);
function unique(array){
var len = array.length;
for(var i = 0; i < len; i++) for(var j = i + 1; j < len; j++)
if(array[j] == array[i]){
array.splice(j,1);
j--;
len--;
}
return array;
}
//*result* peoplenames == ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Carl"]
here is the simple method without any special libraries are special function,
name_list = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
get_uniq = name_list.filter(function(val,ind) { return name_list.indexOf(val) == ind; })
console.log("Original name list:"+name_list.length, name_list)
console.log("\n Unique name list:"+get_uniq.length, get_uniq)
Apart from being a simpler, more terse solution than the current answers (minus the future-looking ES6 ones), I perf tested this and it was much faster as well:
var uniqueArray = dupeArray.filter(function(item, i, self){
return self.lastIndexOf(item) == i;
});
One caveat: Array.lastIndexOf() was added in IE9, so if you need to go lower than that, you'll need to look elsewhere.
Generic Functional Approach
Here is a generic and strictly functional approach with ES2015:
// small, reusable auxiliary functions
const apply = f => a => f(a);
const flip = f => b => a => f(a) (b);
const uncurry = f => (a, b) => f(a) (b);
const push = x => xs => (xs.push(x), xs);
const foldl = f => acc => xs => xs.reduce(uncurry(f), acc);
const some = f => xs => xs.some(apply(f));
// the actual de-duplicate function
const uniqueBy = f => foldl(
acc => x => some(f(x)) (acc)
? acc
: push(x) (acc)
) ([]);
// comparators
const eq = y => x => x === y;
// string equality case insensitive :D
const seqCI = y => x => x.toLowerCase() === y.toLowerCase();
// mock data
const xs = [1,2,3,1,2,3,4];
const ys = ["a", "b", "c", "A", "B", "C", "D"];
console.log( uniqueBy(eq) (xs) );
console.log( uniqueBy(seqCI) (ys) );
We can easily derive unique from unqiueBy or use the faster implementation utilizing Sets:
const unqiue = uniqueBy(eq);
// const unique = xs => Array.from(new Set(xs));
Benefits of this approach:
generic solution by using a separate comparator function
declarative and succinct implementation
reuse of other small, generic functions
Performance Considerations
uniqueBy isn't as fast as an imperative implementation with loops, but it is way more expressive due to its genericity.
If you identify uniqueBy as the cause of a concrete performance penalty in your app, replace it with optimized code. That is, write your code first in an functional, declarative way. Afterwards, provided that you encounter performance issues, try to optimize the code at the locations, which are the cause of the problem.
Memory Consumption and Garbage Collection
uniqueBy utilizes mutations (push(x) (acc)) hidden inside its body. It reuses the accumulator instead of throwing it away after each iteration. This reduces memory consumption and GC pressure. Since this side effect is wrapped inside the function, everything outside remains pure.
for (i=0; i<originalArray.length; i++) {
if (!newArray.includes(originalArray[i])) {
newArray.push(originalArray[i]);
}
}
The following script returns a new array containing only unique values. It works on string and numbers. No requirement for additional libraries only vanilla JS.
Browser support:
Feature Chrome Firefox (Gecko) Internet Explorer Opera Safari
Basic support (Yes) 1.5 (1.8) 9 (Yes) (Yes)
https://jsfiddle.net/fzmcgcxv/3/
var duplicates = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl","Mike","Mike","Nancy","Carl"];
var unique = duplicates.filter(function(elem, pos) {
return duplicates.indexOf(elem) == pos;
});
alert(unique);
If by any chance you were using
D3.js
You could do
d3.set(["foo", "bar", "foo", "baz"]).values() ==> ["foo", "bar", "baz"]
https://github.com/mbostock/d3/wiki/Arrays#set_values
A slight modification of thg435's excellent answer to use a custom comparator:
function contains(array, obj) {
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
if (isEqual(array[i], obj)) return true;
}
return false;
}
//comparator
function isEqual(obj1, obj2) {
if (obj1.name == obj2.name) return true;
return false;
}
function removeDuplicates(ary) {
var arr = [];
return ary.filter(function(x) {
return !contains(arr, x) && arr.push(x);
});
}
$(document).ready(function() {
var arr1=["dog","dog","fish","cat","cat","fish","apple","orange"]
var arr2=["cat","fish","mango","apple"]
var uniquevalue=[];
var seconduniquevalue=[];
var finalarray=[];
$.each(arr1,function(key,value){
if($.inArray (value,uniquevalue) === -1)
{
uniquevalue.push(value)
}
});
$.each(arr2,function(key,value){
if($.inArray (value,seconduniquevalue) === -1)
{
seconduniquevalue.push(value)
}
});
$.each(uniquevalue,function(ikey,ivalue){
$.each(seconduniquevalue,function(ukey,uvalue){
if( ivalue == uvalue)
{
finalarray.push(ivalue);
}
});
});
alert(finalarray);
});
https://jsfiddle.net/2w0k5tz8/
function remove_duplicates(array_){
var ret_array = new Array();
for (var a = array_.length - 1; a >= 0; a--) {
for (var b = array_.length - 1; b >= 0; b--) {
if(array_[a] == array_[b] && a != b){
delete array_[b];
}
};
if(array_[a] != undefined)
ret_array.push(array_[a]);
};
return ret_array;
}
console.log(remove_duplicates(Array(1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3)));
Loop through, remove duplicates, and create a clone array place holder because the array index will not be updated.
Loop backward for better performance ( your loop wont need to keep checking the length of your array)
This question already has answers here:
Get all unique values in a JavaScript array (remove duplicates)
(91 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I have a very simple JavaScript array that may or may not contain duplicates.
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
I need to remove the duplicates and put the unique values in a new array.
I could point to all the code that I've tried but I think it's useless because they don't work. I accept jQuery solutions too.
Similar question:
Get all non-unique values (i.e.: duplicate/more than one occurrence) in an array
TL;DR
Using the Set constructor and the spread syntax:
uniq = [...new Set(array)];
( Note that var uniq will be an array... new Set() turns it into a set, but [... ] turns it back into an array again )
"Smart" but naïve way
uniqueArray = a.filter(function(item, pos) {
return a.indexOf(item) == pos;
})
Basically, we iterate over the array and, for each element, check if the first position of this element in the array is equal to the current position. Obviously, these two positions are different for duplicate elements.
Using the 3rd ("this array") parameter of the filter callback we can avoid a closure of the array variable:
uniqueArray = a.filter(function(item, pos, self) {
return self.indexOf(item) == pos;
})
Although concise, this algorithm is not particularly efficient for large arrays (quadratic time).
Hashtables to the rescue
function uniq(a) {
var seen = {};
return a.filter(function(item) {
return seen.hasOwnProperty(item) ? false : (seen[item] = true);
});
}
This is how it's usually done. The idea is to place each element in a hashtable and then check for its presence instantly. This gives us linear time, but has at least two drawbacks:
since hash keys can only be strings or symbols in JavaScript, this code doesn't distinguish numbers and "numeric strings". That is, uniq([1,"1"]) will return just [1]
for the same reason, all objects will be considered equal: uniq([{foo:1},{foo:2}]) will return just [{foo:1}].
That said, if your arrays contain only primitives and you don't care about types (e.g. it's always numbers), this solution is optimal.
The best from two worlds
A universal solution combines both approaches: it uses hash lookups for primitives and linear search for objects.
function uniq(a) {
var prims = {"boolean":{}, "number":{}, "string":{}}, objs = [];
return a.filter(function(item) {
var type = typeof item;
if(type in prims)
return prims[type].hasOwnProperty(item) ? false : (prims[type][item] = true);
else
return objs.indexOf(item) >= 0 ? false : objs.push(item);
});
}
sort | uniq
Another option is to sort the array first, and then remove each element equal to the preceding one:
function uniq(a) {
return a.sort().filter(function(item, pos, ary) {
return !pos || item != ary[pos - 1];
});
}
Again, this doesn't work with objects (because all objects are equal for sort). Additionally, we silently change the original array as a side effect - not good! However, if your input is already sorted, this is the way to go (just remove sort from the above).
Unique by...
Sometimes it's desired to uniquify a list based on some criteria other than just equality, for example, to filter out objects that are different, but share some property. This can be done elegantly by passing a callback. This "key" callback is applied to each element, and elements with equal "keys" are removed. Since key is expected to return a primitive, hash table will work fine here:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
var seen = {};
return a.filter(function(item) {
var k = key(item);
return seen.hasOwnProperty(k) ? false : (seen[k] = true);
})
}
A particularly useful key() is JSON.stringify which will remove objects that are physically different, but "look" the same:
a = [[1,2,3], [4,5,6], [1,2,3]]
b = uniqBy(a, JSON.stringify)
console.log(b) // [[1,2,3], [4,5,6]]
If the key is not primitive, you have to resort to the linear search:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
var index = [];
return a.filter(function (item) {
var k = key(item);
return index.indexOf(k) >= 0 ? false : index.push(k);
});
}
In ES6 you can use a Set:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
let seen = new Set();
return a.filter(item => {
let k = key(item);
return seen.has(k) ? false : seen.add(k);
});
}
or a Map:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
return [
...new Map(
a.map(x => [key(x), x])
).values()
]
}
which both also work with non-primitive keys.
First or last?
When removing objects by a key, you might to want to keep the first of "equal" objects or the last one.
Use the Set variant above to keep the first, and the Map to keep the last:
function uniqByKeepFirst(a, key) {
let seen = new Set();
return a.filter(item => {
let k = key(item);
return seen.has(k) ? false : seen.add(k);
});
}
function uniqByKeepLast(a, key) {
return [
...new Map(
a.map(x => [key(x), x])
).values()
]
}
//
data = [
{a:1, u:1},
{a:2, u:2},
{a:3, u:3},
{a:4, u:1},
{a:5, u:2},
{a:6, u:3},
];
console.log(uniqByKeepFirst(data, it => it.u))
console.log(uniqByKeepLast(data, it => it.u))
Libraries
Both underscore and Lo-Dash provide uniq methods. Their algorithms are basically similar to the first snippet above and boil down to this:
var result = [];
a.forEach(function(item) {
if(result.indexOf(item) < 0) {
result.push(item);
}
});
This is quadratic, but there are nice additional goodies, like wrapping native indexOf, ability to uniqify by a key (iteratee in their parlance), and optimizations for already sorted arrays.
If you're using jQuery and can't stand anything without a dollar before it, it goes like this:
$.uniqArray = function(a) {
return $.grep(a, function(item, pos) {
return $.inArray(item, a) === pos;
});
}
which is, again, a variation of the first snippet.
Performance
Function calls are expensive in JavaScript, therefore the above solutions, as concise as they are, are not particularly efficient. For maximal performance, replace filter with a loop and get rid of other function calls:
function uniq_fast(a) {
var seen = {};
var out = [];
var len = a.length;
var j = 0;
for(var i = 0; i < len; i++) {
var item = a[i];
if(seen[item] !== 1) {
seen[item] = 1;
out[j++] = item;
}
}
return out;
}
This chunk of ugly code does the same as the snippet #3 above, but an order of magnitude faster (as of 2017 it's only twice as fast - JS core folks are doing a great job!)
function uniq(a) {
var seen = {};
return a.filter(function(item) {
return seen.hasOwnProperty(item) ? false : (seen[item] = true);
});
}
function uniq_fast(a) {
var seen = {};
var out = [];
var len = a.length;
var j = 0;
for(var i = 0; i < len; i++) {
var item = a[i];
if(seen[item] !== 1) {
seen[item] = 1;
out[j++] = item;
}
}
return out;
}
/////
var r = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9],
a = [],
LEN = 1000,
LOOPS = 1000;
while(LEN--)
a = a.concat(r);
var d = new Date();
for(var i = 0; i < LOOPS; i++)
uniq(a);
document.write('<br>uniq, ms/loop: ' + (new Date() - d)/LOOPS)
var d = new Date();
for(var i = 0; i < LOOPS; i++)
uniq_fast(a);
document.write('<br>uniq_fast, ms/loop: ' + (new Date() - d)/LOOPS)
ES6
ES6 provides the Set object, which makes things a whole lot easier:
function uniq(a) {
return Array.from(new Set(a));
}
or
let uniq = a => [...new Set(a)];
Note that, unlike in python, ES6 sets are iterated in insertion order, so this code preserves the order of the original array.
However, if you need an array with unique elements, why not use sets right from the beginning?
Generators
A "lazy", generator-based version of uniq can be built on the same basis:
take the next value from the argument
if it's been seen already, skip it
otherwise, yield it and add it to the set of already seen values
function* uniqIter(a) {
let seen = new Set();
for (let x of a) {
if (!seen.has(x)) {
seen.add(x);
yield x;
}
}
}
// example:
function* randomsBelow(limit) {
while (1)
yield Math.floor(Math.random() * limit);
}
// note that randomsBelow is endless
count = 20;
limit = 30;
for (let r of uniqIter(randomsBelow(limit))) {
console.log(r);
if (--count === 0)
break
}
// exercise for the reader: what happens if we set `limit` less than `count` and why
Quick and dirty using jQuery:
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
var uniqueNames = [];
$.each(names, function(i, el){
if($.inArray(el, uniqueNames) === -1) uniqueNames.push(el);
});
Got tired of seeing all bad examples with for-loops or jQuery. Javascript has the perfect tools for this nowadays: sort, map and reduce.
Uniq reduce while keeping existing order
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
var uniq = names.reduce(function(a,b){
if (a.indexOf(b) < 0 ) a.push(b);
return a;
},[]);
console.log(uniq, names) // [ 'Mike', 'Matt', 'Nancy', 'Adam', 'Jenny', 'Carl' ]
// one liner
return names.reduce(function(a,b){if(a.indexOf(b)<0)a.push(b);return a;},[]);
Faster uniq with sorting
There are probably faster ways but this one is pretty decent.
var uniq = names.slice() // slice makes copy of array before sorting it
.sort(function(a,b){
return a > b;
})
.reduce(function(a,b){
if (a.slice(-1)[0] !== b) a.push(b); // slice(-1)[0] means last item in array without removing it (like .pop())
return a;
},[]); // this empty array becomes the starting value for a
// one liner
return names.slice().sort(function(a,b){return a > b}).reduce(function(a,b){if (a.slice(-1)[0] !== b) a.push(b);return a;},[]);
Update 2015: ES6 version:
In ES6 you have Sets and Spread which makes it very easy and performant to remove all duplicates:
var uniq = [ ...new Set(names) ]; // [ 'Mike', 'Matt', 'Nancy', 'Adam', 'Jenny', 'Carl' ]
Sort based on occurrence:
Someone asked about ordering the results based on how many unique names there are:
var names = ['Mike', 'Matt', 'Nancy', 'Adam', 'Jenny', 'Nancy', 'Carl']
var uniq = names
.map((name) => {
return {count: 1, name: name}
})
.reduce((a, b) => {
a[b.name] = (a[b.name] || 0) + b.count
return a
}, {})
var sorted = Object.keys(uniq).sort((a, b) => uniq[a] < uniq[b])
console.log(sorted)
Vanilla JS: Remove duplicates using an Object like a Set
You can always try putting it into an object, and then iterating through its keys:
function remove_duplicates(arr) {
var obj = {};
var ret_arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
obj[arr[i]] = true;
}
for (var key in obj) {
ret_arr.push(key);
}
return ret_arr;
}
Vanilla JS: Remove duplicates by tracking already seen values (order-safe)
Or, for an order-safe version, use an object to store all previously seen values, and check values against it before before adding to an array.
function remove_duplicates_safe(arr) {
var seen = {};
var ret_arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
if (!(arr[i] in seen)) {
ret_arr.push(arr[i]);
seen[arr[i]] = true;
}
}
return ret_arr;
}
ECMAScript 6: Use the new Set data structure (order-safe)
ECMAScript 6 adds the new Set Data-Structure, which lets you store values of any type. Set.values returns elements in insertion order.
function remove_duplicates_es6(arr) {
let s = new Set(arr);
let it = s.values();
return Array.from(it);
}
Example usage:
a = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
b = remove_duplicates(a);
// b:
// ["Adam", "Carl", "Jenny", "Matt", "Mike", "Nancy"]
c = remove_duplicates_safe(a);
// c:
// ["Mike", "Matt", "Nancy", "Adam", "Jenny", "Carl"]
d = remove_duplicates_es6(a);
// d:
// ["Mike", "Matt", "Nancy", "Adam", "Jenny", "Carl"]
A single line version using array .filter and .indexOf function:
arr = arr.filter(function (value, index, array) {
return array.indexOf(value) === index;
});
Use Underscore.js
It's a library with a host of functions for manipulating arrays.
It's the tie to go along with jQuery's tux, and Backbone.js's
suspenders.
_.uniq
_.uniq(array, [isSorted], [iterator]) Alias: unique
Produces a duplicate-free version of the array, using === to test object
equality. If you know in advance that the array is sorted, passing
true for isSorted will run a much faster algorithm. If you want to
compute unique items based on a transformation, pass an iterator
function.
Example
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
alert(_.uniq(names, false));
Note: Lo-Dash (an underscore competitor) also offers a comparable .uniq implementation.
One line:
let names = ['Mike','Matt','Nancy','Adam','Jenny','Nancy','Carl', 'Nancy'];
let dup = [...new Set(names)];
console.log(dup);
You can simply do it in JavaScript, with the help of the second - index - parameter of the filter method:
var a = [2,3,4,5,5,4];
a.filter(function(value, index){ return a.indexOf(value) == index });
or in short hand
a.filter((v,i) => a.indexOf(v) == i)
use Array.filter() like this
var actualArr = ['Apple', 'Apple', 'Banana', 'Mango', 'Strawberry', 'Banana'];
console.log('Actual Array: ' + actualArr);
var filteredArr = actualArr.filter(function(item, index) {
if (actualArr.indexOf(item) == index)
return item;
});
console.log('Filtered Array: ' + filteredArr);
this can be made shorter in ES6 to
actualArr.filter((item,index,self) => self.indexOf(item)==index);
Here is nice explanation of Array.filter()
The most concise way to remove duplicates from an array using native javascript functions is to use a sequence like below:
vals.sort().reduce(function(a, b){ if (b != a[0]) a.unshift(b); return a }, [])
there's no need for slice nor indexOf within the reduce function, like i've seen in other examples! it makes sense to use it along with a filter function though:
vals.filter(function(v, i, a){ return i == a.indexOf(v) })
Yet another ES6(2015) way of doing this that already works on a few browsers is:
Array.from(new Set(vals))
or even using the spread operator:
[...new Set(vals)]
cheers!
The top answers have complexity of O(n²), but this can be done with just O(n) by using an object as a hash:
function getDistinctArray(arr) {
var dups = {};
return arr.filter(function(el) {
var hash = el.valueOf();
var isDup = dups[hash];
dups[hash] = true;
return !isDup;
});
}
This will work for strings, numbers, and dates. If your array contains objects, the above solution won't work because when coerced to a string, they will all have a value of "[object Object]" (or something similar) and that isn't suitable as a lookup value. You can get an O(n) implementation for objects by setting a flag on the object itself:
function getDistinctObjArray(arr) {
var distinctArr = arr.filter(function(el) {
var isDup = el.inArray;
el.inArray = true;
return !isDup;
});
distinctArr.forEach(function(el) {
delete el.inArray;
});
return distinctArr;
}
2019 edit: Modern versions of JavaScript make this a much easier problem to solve. Using Set will work, regardless of whether your array contains objects, strings, numbers, or any other type.
function getDistinctArray(arr) {
return [...new Set(arr)];
}
The implementation is so simple, defining a function is no longer warranted.
Simplest One I've run into so far. In es6.
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl", "Mike", "Nancy"]
var noDupe = Array.from(new Set(names))
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Set
In ECMAScript 6 (aka ECMAScript 2015), Set can be used to filter out duplicates. Then it can be converted back to an array using the spread operator.
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"],
unique = [...new Set(names)];
Solution 1
Array.prototype.unique = function() {
var a = [];
for (i = 0; i < this.length; i++) {
var current = this[i];
if (a.indexOf(current) < 0) a.push(current);
}
return a;
}
Solution 2 (using Set)
Array.prototype.unique = function() {
return Array.from(new Set(this));
}
Test
var x=[1,2,3,3,2,1];
x.unique() //[1,2,3]
Performance
When I tested both implementation (with and without Set) for performance in chrome, I found that the one with Set is much much faster!
Array.prototype.unique1 = function() {
var a = [];
for (i = 0; i < this.length; i++) {
var current = this[i];
if (a.indexOf(current) < 0) a.push(current);
}
return a;
}
Array.prototype.unique2 = function() {
return Array.from(new Set(this));
}
var x=[];
for(var i=0;i<10000;i++){
x.push("x"+i);x.push("x"+(i+1));
}
console.time("unique1");
console.log(x.unique1());
console.timeEnd("unique1");
console.time("unique2");
console.log(x.unique2());
console.timeEnd("unique2");
Go for this one:
var uniqueArray = duplicateArray.filter(function(elem, pos) {
return duplicateArray.indexOf(elem) == pos;
});
Now uniqueArray contains no duplicates.
The following is more than 80% faster than the jQuery method listed (see tests below).
It is an answer from a similar question a few years ago. If I come across the person who originally proposed it I will post credit.
Pure JS.
var temp = {};
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++)
temp[array[i]] = true;
var r = [];
for (var k in temp)
r.push(k);
return r;
My test case comparison:
http://jsperf.com/remove-duplicate-array-tests
I had done a detailed comparison of dupes removal at some other question but having noticed that this is the real place i just wanted to share it here as well.
I believe this is the best way to do this
var myArray = [100, 200, 100, 200, 100, 100, 200, 200, 200, 200],
reduced = Object.keys(myArray.reduce((p,c) => (p[c] = true,p),{}));
console.log(reduced);
OK .. even though this one is O(n) and the others are O(n^2) i was curious to see benchmark comparison between this reduce / look up table and filter/indexOf combo (I choose Jeetendras very nice implementation https://stackoverflow.com/a/37441144/4543207). I prepare a 100K item array filled with random positive integers in range 0-9999 and and it removes the duplicates. I repeat the test for 10 times and the average of the results show that they are no match in performance.
In firefox v47 reduce & lut : 14.85ms vs filter & indexOf : 2836ms
In chrome v51 reduce & lut : 23.90ms vs filter & indexOf : 1066ms
Well ok so far so good. But let's do it properly this time in the ES6 style. It looks so cool..! But as of now how it will perform against the powerful lut solution is a mystery to me. Lets first see the code and then benchmark it.
var myArray = [100, 200, 100, 200, 100, 100, 200, 200, 200, 200],
reduced = [...myArray.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()];
console.log(reduced);
Wow that was short..! But how about the performance..? It's beautiful... Since the heavy weight of the filter / indexOf lifted over our shoulders now i can test an array 1M random items of positive integers in range 0..99999 to get an average from 10 consecutive tests. I can say this time it's a real match. See the result for yourself :)
var ranar = [],
red1 = a => Object.keys(a.reduce((p,c) => (p[c] = true,p),{})),
red2 = a => reduced = [...a.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()],
avg1 = [],
avg2 = [],
ts = 0,
te = 0,
res1 = [],
res2 = [],
count= 10;
for (var i = 0; i<count; i++){
ranar = (new Array(1000000).fill(true)).map(e => Math.floor(Math.random()*100000));
ts = performance.now();
res1 = red1(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg1.push(te-ts);
ts = performance.now();
res2 = red2(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg2.push(te-ts);
}
avg1 = avg1.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
avg2 = avg2.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
console.log("reduce & lut took: " + avg1 + "msec");
console.log("map & spread took: " + avg2 + "msec");
Which one would you use..? Well not so fast...! Don't be deceived. Map is at displacement. Now look... in all of the above cases we fill an array of size n with numbers of range < n. I mean we have an array of size 100 and we fill with random numbers 0..9 so there are definite duplicates and "almost" definitely each number has a duplicate. How about if we fill the array in size 100 with random numbers 0..9999. Let's now see Map playing at home. This time an Array of 100K items but random number range is 0..100M. We will do 100 consecutive tests to average the results. OK let's see the bets..! <- no typo
var ranar = [],
red1 = a => Object.keys(a.reduce((p,c) => (p[c] = true,p),{})),
red2 = a => reduced = [...a.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()],
avg1 = [],
avg2 = [],
ts = 0,
te = 0,
res1 = [],
res2 = [],
count= 100;
for (var i = 0; i<count; i++){
ranar = (new Array(100000).fill(true)).map(e => Math.floor(Math.random()*100000000));
ts = performance.now();
res1 = red1(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg1.push(te-ts);
ts = performance.now();
res2 = red2(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg2.push(te-ts);
}
avg1 = avg1.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
avg2 = avg2.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
console.log("reduce & lut took: " + avg1 + "msec");
console.log("map & spread took: " + avg2 + "msec");
Now this is the spectacular comeback of Map()..! May be now you can make a better decision when you want to remove the dupes.
Well ok we are all happy now. But the lead role always comes last with some applause. I am sure some of you wonder what Set object would do. Now that since we are open to ES6 and we know Map is the winner of the previous games let us compare Map with Set as a final. A typical Real Madrid vs Barcelona game this time... or is it? Let's see who will win the el classico :)
var ranar = [],
red1 = a => reduced = [...a.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()],
red2 = a => Array.from(new Set(a)),
avg1 = [],
avg2 = [],
ts = 0,
te = 0,
res1 = [],
res2 = [],
count= 100;
for (var i = 0; i<count; i++){
ranar = (new Array(100000).fill(true)).map(e => Math.floor(Math.random()*10000000));
ts = performance.now();
res1 = red1(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg1.push(te-ts);
ts = performance.now();
res2 = red2(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg2.push(te-ts);
}
avg1 = avg1.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
avg2 = avg2.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
console.log("map & spread took: " + avg1 + "msec");
console.log("set & A.from took: " + avg2 + "msec");
Wow.. man..! Well unexpectedly it didn't turn out to be an el classico at all. More like Barcelona FC against CA Osasuna :))
Here is a simple answer to the question.
var names = ["Alex","Tony","James","Suzane", "Marie", "Laurence", "Alex", "Suzane", "Marie", "Marie", "James", "Tony", "Alex"];
var uniqueNames = [];
for(var i in names){
if(uniqueNames.indexOf(names[i]) === -1){
uniqueNames.push(names[i]);
}
}
A simple but effective technique, is to use the filter method in combination with the filter function(value, index){ return this.indexOf(value) == index }.
Code example :
var data = [2,3,4,5,5,4];
var filter = function(value, index){ return this.indexOf(value) == index };
var filteredData = data.filter(filter, data );
document.body.innerHTML = '<pre>' + JSON.stringify(filteredData, null, '\t') + '</pre>';
See also this Fiddle.
So the options is:
let a = [11,22,11,22];
let b = []
b = [ ...new Set(a) ];
// b = [11, 22]
b = Array.from( new Set(a))
// b = [11, 22]
b = a.filter((val,i)=>{
return a.indexOf(val)==i
})
// b = [11, 22]
Here is very simple for understanding and working anywhere (even in PhotoshopScript) code. Check it!
var peoplenames = new Array("Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl");
peoplenames = unique(peoplenames);
alert(peoplenames);
function unique(array){
var len = array.length;
for(var i = 0; i < len; i++) for(var j = i + 1; j < len; j++)
if(array[j] == array[i]){
array.splice(j,1);
j--;
len--;
}
return array;
}
//*result* peoplenames == ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Carl"]
here is the simple method without any special libraries are special function,
name_list = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
get_uniq = name_list.filter(function(val,ind) { return name_list.indexOf(val) == ind; })
console.log("Original name list:"+name_list.length, name_list)
console.log("\n Unique name list:"+get_uniq.length, get_uniq)
Apart from being a simpler, more terse solution than the current answers (minus the future-looking ES6 ones), I perf tested this and it was much faster as well:
var uniqueArray = dupeArray.filter(function(item, i, self){
return self.lastIndexOf(item) == i;
});
One caveat: Array.lastIndexOf() was added in IE9, so if you need to go lower than that, you'll need to look elsewhere.
Generic Functional Approach
Here is a generic and strictly functional approach with ES2015:
// small, reusable auxiliary functions
const apply = f => a => f(a);
const flip = f => b => a => f(a) (b);
const uncurry = f => (a, b) => f(a) (b);
const push = x => xs => (xs.push(x), xs);
const foldl = f => acc => xs => xs.reduce(uncurry(f), acc);
const some = f => xs => xs.some(apply(f));
// the actual de-duplicate function
const uniqueBy = f => foldl(
acc => x => some(f(x)) (acc)
? acc
: push(x) (acc)
) ([]);
// comparators
const eq = y => x => x === y;
// string equality case insensitive :D
const seqCI = y => x => x.toLowerCase() === y.toLowerCase();
// mock data
const xs = [1,2,3,1,2,3,4];
const ys = ["a", "b", "c", "A", "B", "C", "D"];
console.log( uniqueBy(eq) (xs) );
console.log( uniqueBy(seqCI) (ys) );
We can easily derive unique from unqiueBy or use the faster implementation utilizing Sets:
const unqiue = uniqueBy(eq);
// const unique = xs => Array.from(new Set(xs));
Benefits of this approach:
generic solution by using a separate comparator function
declarative and succinct implementation
reuse of other small, generic functions
Performance Considerations
uniqueBy isn't as fast as an imperative implementation with loops, but it is way more expressive due to its genericity.
If you identify uniqueBy as the cause of a concrete performance penalty in your app, replace it with optimized code. That is, write your code first in an functional, declarative way. Afterwards, provided that you encounter performance issues, try to optimize the code at the locations, which are the cause of the problem.
Memory Consumption and Garbage Collection
uniqueBy utilizes mutations (push(x) (acc)) hidden inside its body. It reuses the accumulator instead of throwing it away after each iteration. This reduces memory consumption and GC pressure. Since this side effect is wrapped inside the function, everything outside remains pure.
for (i=0; i<originalArray.length; i++) {
if (!newArray.includes(originalArray[i])) {
newArray.push(originalArray[i]);
}
}
The following script returns a new array containing only unique values. It works on string and numbers. No requirement for additional libraries only vanilla JS.
Browser support:
Feature Chrome Firefox (Gecko) Internet Explorer Opera Safari
Basic support (Yes) 1.5 (1.8) 9 (Yes) (Yes)
https://jsfiddle.net/fzmcgcxv/3/
var duplicates = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl","Mike","Mike","Nancy","Carl"];
var unique = duplicates.filter(function(elem, pos) {
return duplicates.indexOf(elem) == pos;
});
alert(unique);
If by any chance you were using
D3.js
You could do
d3.set(["foo", "bar", "foo", "baz"]).values() ==> ["foo", "bar", "baz"]
https://github.com/mbostock/d3/wiki/Arrays#set_values
A slight modification of thg435's excellent answer to use a custom comparator:
function contains(array, obj) {
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
if (isEqual(array[i], obj)) return true;
}
return false;
}
//comparator
function isEqual(obj1, obj2) {
if (obj1.name == obj2.name) return true;
return false;
}
function removeDuplicates(ary) {
var arr = [];
return ary.filter(function(x) {
return !contains(arr, x) && arr.push(x);
});
}
$(document).ready(function() {
var arr1=["dog","dog","fish","cat","cat","fish","apple","orange"]
var arr2=["cat","fish","mango","apple"]
var uniquevalue=[];
var seconduniquevalue=[];
var finalarray=[];
$.each(arr1,function(key,value){
if($.inArray (value,uniquevalue) === -1)
{
uniquevalue.push(value)
}
});
$.each(arr2,function(key,value){
if($.inArray (value,seconduniquevalue) === -1)
{
seconduniquevalue.push(value)
}
});
$.each(uniquevalue,function(ikey,ivalue){
$.each(seconduniquevalue,function(ukey,uvalue){
if( ivalue == uvalue)
{
finalarray.push(ivalue);
}
});
});
alert(finalarray);
});
https://jsfiddle.net/2w0k5tz8/
function remove_duplicates(array_){
var ret_array = new Array();
for (var a = array_.length - 1; a >= 0; a--) {
for (var b = array_.length - 1; b >= 0; b--) {
if(array_[a] == array_[b] && a != b){
delete array_[b];
}
};
if(array_[a] != undefined)
ret_array.push(array_[a]);
};
return ret_array;
}
console.log(remove_duplicates(Array(1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3)));
Loop through, remove duplicates, and create a clone array place holder because the array index will not be updated.
Loop backward for better performance ( your loop wont need to keep checking the length of your array)
I have two JavaScript arrays:
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
I want the output to be:
var array3 = ["Vijendra","Singh","Shakya"];
The output array should have repeated words removed.
How do I merge two arrays in JavaScript so that I get only the unique items from each array in the same order they were inserted into the original arrays?
To just merge the arrays (without removing duplicates)
ES5 version use Array.concat:
var array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
array1 = array1.concat(array2);
console.log(array1);
ES6 version use destructuring
const array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
const array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
const array3 = [...array1, ...array2];
Since there is no 'built in' way to remove duplicates (ECMA-262 actually has Array.forEach which would be great for this), we have to do it manually:
Array.prototype.unique = function() {
var a = this.concat();
for(var i=0; i<a.length; ++i) {
for(var j=i+1; j<a.length; ++j) {
if(a[i] === a[j])
a.splice(j--, 1);
}
}
return a;
};
Then, to use it:
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
// Merges both arrays and gets unique items
var array3 = array1.concat(array2).unique();
This will also preserve the order of the arrays (i.e, no sorting needed).
Since many people are annoyed about prototype augmentation of Array.prototype and for in loops, here is a less invasive way to use it:
function arrayUnique(array) {
var a = array.concat();
for(var i=0; i<a.length; ++i) {
for(var j=i+1; j<a.length; ++j) {
if(a[i] === a[j])
a.splice(j--, 1);
}
}
return a;
}
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
// Merges both arrays and gets unique items
var array3 = arrayUnique(array1.concat(array2));
For those who are fortunate enough to work with browsers where ES5 is available, you can use Object.defineProperty like this:
Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, 'unique', {
enumerable: false,
configurable: false,
writable: false,
value: function() {
var a = this.concat();
for(var i=0; i<a.length; ++i) {
for(var j=i+1; j<a.length; ++j) {
if(a[i] === a[j])
a.splice(j--, 1);
}
}
return a;
}
});
With Underscore.js or Lo-Dash you can do:
console.log(_.union([1, 2, 3], [101, 2, 1, 10], [2, 1]));
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.min.js"></script>
http://underscorejs.org/#union
http://lodash.com/docs#union
First concatenate the two arrays, next filter out only the unique items:
var a = [1, 2, 3], b = [101, 2, 1, 10]
var c = a.concat(b)
var d = c.filter((item, pos) => c.indexOf(item) === pos)
console.log(d) // d is [1, 2, 3, 101, 10]
Edit
As suggested a more performance wise solution would be to filter out the unique items in b before concatenating with a:
var a = [1, 2, 3], b = [101, 2, 1, 10]
var c = a.concat(b.filter((item) => a.indexOf(item) < 0))
console.log(c) // c is [1, 2, 3, 101, 10]
[...array1,...array2] // => don't remove duplication
OR
[...new Set([...array1 ,...array2])]; // => remove duplication
This is an ECMAScript 6 solution using spread operator and array generics.
Currently it only works with Firefox, and possibly Internet Explorer Technical Preview.
But if you use Babel, you can have it now.
const input = [
[1, 2, 3],
[101, 2, 1, 10],
[2, 1]
];
const mergeDedupe = (arr) => {
return [...new Set([].concat(...arr))];
}
console.log('output', mergeDedupe(input));
Using a Set (ECMAScript 2015), it will be as simple as that:
const array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
const array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
console.log(Array.from(new Set(array1.concat(array2))));
You can do it simply with ECMAScript 6,
var array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var array3 = [...new Set([...array1 ,...array2])];
console.log(array3); // ["Vijendra", "Singh", "Shakya"];
Use the spread operator for concatenating the array.
Use Set for creating a distinct set of elements.
Again use the spread operator to convert the Set into an array.
Here is a slightly different take on the loop. With some of the optimizations in the latest version of Chrome, it is the fastest method for resolving the union of the two arrays (Chrome 38.0.2111).
JSPerf: "Merge two arrays keeping only unique values" (archived)
var array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var array3 = [];
var arr = array1.concat(array2),
len = arr.length;
while (len--) {
var itm = arr[len];
if (array3.indexOf(itm) === -1) {
array3.unshift(itm);
}
}
while loop: ~589k ops/s
filter: ~445k ops/s
lodash: 308k ops/s
for loops: 225k ops/s
A comment pointed out that one of my setup variables was causing my loop to pull ahead of the rest because it didn't have to initialize an empty array to write to. I agree with that, so I've rewritten the test to even the playing field, and included an even faster option.
JSPerf: "Merge two arrays keeping only unique values" (archived)
let whileLoopAlt = function (array1, array2) {
const array3 = array1.slice(0);
let len1 = array1.length;
let len2 = array2.length;
const assoc = {};
while (len1--) {
assoc[array1[len1]] = null;
}
while (len2--) {
let itm = array2[len2];
if (assoc[itm] === undefined) { // Eliminate the indexOf call
array3.push(itm);
assoc[itm] = null;
}
}
return array3;
};
In this alternate solution, I've combined one answer's associative array solution to eliminate the .indexOf() call in the loop which was slowing things down a lot with a second loop, and included some of the other optimizations that other users have suggested in their answers as well.
The top answer here with the double loop on every value (i-1) is still significantly slower. lodash is still doing strong, and I still would recommend it to anyone who doesn't mind adding a library to their project. For those who don't want to, my while loop is still a good answer and the filter answer has a very strong showing here, beating out all on my tests with the latest Canary Chrome (44.0.2360) as of this writing.
Check out Mike's answer and Dan Stocker's answer if you want to step it up a notch in speed. Those are by far the fastest of all results after going through almost all of the viable answers.
I simplified the best of this answer and turned it into a nice function:
function mergeUnique(arr1, arr2){
return arr1.concat(arr2.filter(function (item) {
return arr1.indexOf(item) === -1;
}));
}
The ES6 offers a single-line solution for merging multiple arrays without duplicates by using destructuring and set.
const array1 = ['a','b','c'];
const array2 = ['c','c','d','e'];
const array3 = [...new Set([...array1,...array2])];
console.log(array3); // ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e"]
Just throwing in my two cents.
function mergeStringArrays(a, b){
var hash = {};
var ret = [];
for(var i=0; i < a.length; i++){
var e = a[i];
if (!hash[e]){
hash[e] = true;
ret.push(e);
}
}
for(var i=0; i < b.length; i++){
var e = b[i];
if (!hash[e]){
hash[e] = true;
ret.push(e);
}
}
return ret;
}
This is a method I use a lot, it uses an object as a hashlookup table to do the duplicate checking. Assuming that the hash is O(1), then this runs in O(n) where n is a.length + b.length. I honestly have no idea how the browser does the hash, but it performs well on many thousands of data points.
Just steer clear of nested loops (O(n^2)), and .indexOf() (+O(n)).
function merge(a, b) {
var hash = {};
var i;
for (i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
hash[a[i]] = true;
}
for (i = 0; i < b.length; i++) {
hash[b[i]] = true;
}
return Object.keys(hash);
}
var array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var array3 = merge(array1, array2);
console.log(array3);
I know this question is not about array of objects, but searchers do end up here.
so it's worth adding for future readers a proper ES6 way of merging and then removing duplicates
array of objects:
var arr1 = [ {a: 1}, {a: 2}, {a: 3} ];
var arr2 = [ {a: 1}, {a: 2}, {a: 4} ];
var arr3 = arr1.concat(arr2.filter( ({a}) => !arr1.find(f => f.a == a) ));
// [ {a: 1}, {a: 2}, {a: 3}, {a: 4} ]
EDIT:
The first solution is the fastest only when there are few items. When there are over 400 items, the Set solution becomes the fastest. And when there are 100,000 items, it is a thousand times faster than the first solution.
Considering that performance is important only when there is a lot of items, and that the Set solution is by far the most readable, it should be the right solution in most cases
The perf results below were computed with a small number of items
Based on jsperf, the fastest way (edit: if there are less than 400 items) to merge two arrays in a new one is the following:
for (var i = 0; i < array2.length; i++)
if (array1.indexOf(array2[i]) === -1)
array1.push(array2[i]);
This one is 17% slower:
array2.forEach(v => array1.includes(v) ? null : array1.push(v));
This one is 45% slower (edit: when there is less than 100 items. It is a lot faster when there is a lot of items):
var a = [...new Set([...array1 ,...array2])];
And the accepted answer's is 55% slower (and much longer to write) (edit: and it is several order of magnitude slower than any of the other methods when there are 100,000 items)
var a = array1.concat(array2);
for (var i = 0; i < a.length; ++i) {
for (var j = i + 1; j < a.length; ++j) {
if (a[i] === a[j])
a.splice(j--, 1);
}
}
https://jsbench.me/lxlej18ydg
Array.prototype.merge = function(/* variable number of arrays */){
for(var i = 0; i < arguments.length; i++){
var array = arguments[i];
for(var j = 0; j < array.length; j++){
if(this.indexOf(array[j]) === -1) {
this.push(array[j]);
}
}
}
return this;
};
A much better array merge function.
Performance
Today 2020.10.15 I perform tests on MacOs HighSierra 10.13.6 on Chrome v86, Safari v13.1.2 and Firefox v81 for chosen solutions.
Results
For all browsers
solution H is fast/fastest
solutions L is fast
solution D is fastest on chrome for big arrays
solution G is fast on small arrays
solution M is slowest for small arrays
solutions E are slowest for big arrays
Details
I perform 2 tests cases:
for 2 elements arrays - you can run it HERE
for 10000 elements arrays - you can run it HERE
on solutions
A,
B,
C,
D,
E,
G,
H,
J,
L,
M
presented in below snippet
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/10499519/860099
function A(arr1,arr2) {
return _.union(arr1,arr2)
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/53149853/860099
function B(arr1,arr2) {
return _.unionWith(arr1, arr2, _.isEqual);
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/27664971/860099
function C(arr1,arr2) {
return [...new Set([...arr1,...arr2])]
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/48130841/860099
function D(arr1,arr2) {
return Array.from(new Set(arr1.concat(arr2)))
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/23080662/860099
function E(arr1,arr2) {
return arr1.concat(arr2.filter((item) => arr1.indexOf(item) < 0))
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/28631880/860099
function G(arr1,arr2) {
var hash = {};
var i;
for (i = 0; i < arr1.length; i++) {
hash[arr1[i]] = true;
}
for (i = 0; i < arr2.length; i++) {
hash[arr2[i]] = true;
}
return Object.keys(hash);
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/13847481/860099
function H(a, b){
var hash = {};
var ret = [];
for(var i=0; i < a.length; i++){
var e = a[i];
if (!hash[e]){
hash[e] = true;
ret.push(e);
}
}
for(var i=0; i < b.length; i++){
var e = b[i];
if (!hash[e]){
hash[e] = true;
ret.push(e);
}
}
return ret;
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/1584377/860099
function J(arr1,arr2) {
function arrayUnique(array) {
var a = array.concat();
for(var i=0; i<a.length; ++i) {
for(var j=i+1; j<a.length; ++j) {
if(a[i] === a[j])
a.splice(j--, 1);
}
}
return a;
}
return arrayUnique(arr1.concat(arr2));
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/25120770/860099
function L(array1, array2) {
const array3 = array1.slice(0);
let len1 = array1.length;
let len2 = array2.length;
const assoc = {};
while (len1--) {
assoc[array1[len1]] = null;
}
while (len2--) {
let itm = array2[len2];
if (assoc[itm] === undefined) { // Eliminate the indexOf call
array3.push(itm);
assoc[itm] = null;
}
}
return array3;
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/39336712/860099
function M(arr1,arr2) {
const comp = f => g => x => f(g(x));
const apply = f => a => f(a);
const flip = f => b => a => f(a) (b);
const concat = xs => y => xs.concat(y);
const afrom = apply(Array.from);
const createSet = xs => new Set(xs);
const filter = f => xs => xs.filter(apply(f));
const dedupe = comp(afrom) (createSet);
const union = xs => ys => {
const zs = createSet(xs);
return concat(xs) (
filter(x => zs.has(x)
? false
: zs.add(x)
) (ys));
}
return union(dedupe(arr1)) (arr2)
}
// -------------
// TEST
// -------------
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
[A,B,C,D,E,G,H,J,L,M].forEach(f=> {
console.log(`${f.name} [${f([...array1],[...array2])}]`);
})
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.20/lodash.min.js" integrity="sha512-90vH1Z83AJY9DmlWa8WkjkV79yfS2n2Oxhsi2dZbIv0nC4E6m5AbH8Nh156kkM7JePmqD6tcZsfad1ueoaovww==" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
This snippet only presents functions used in performance tests - it not perform tests itself!
And here are example test run for chrome
UPDATE
I remove cases F,I,K because they modify input arrays and benchmark gives wrong results
Why don't you use an object? It looks like you're trying to model a set. This won't preserve the order, however.
var set1 = {"Vijendra":true, "Singh":true}
var set2 = {"Singh":true, "Shakya":true}
// Merge second object into first
function merge(set1, set2){
for (var key in set2){
if (set2.hasOwnProperty(key))
set1[key] = set2[key]
}
return set1
}
merge(set1, set2)
// Create set from array
function setify(array){
var result = {}
for (var item in array){
if (array.hasOwnProperty(item))
result[array[item]] = true
}
return result
}
For ES6, just one line:
a = [1, 2, 3, 4]
b = [4, 5]
[...new Set(a.concat(b))] // [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The best solution...
You can check directly in the browser console by hitting...
Without duplicate
a = [1, 2, 3];
b = [3, 2, 1, "prince"];
a.concat(b.filter(function(el) {
return a.indexOf(el) === -1;
}));
With duplicate
["prince", "asish", 5].concat(["ravi", 4])
If you want without duplicate you can try a better solution from here - Shouting Code.
[1, 2, 3].concat([3, 2, 1, "prince"].filter(function(el) {
return [1, 2, 3].indexOf(el) === -1;
}));
Try on Chrome browser console
f12 > console
Output:
["prince", "asish", 5, "ravi", 4]
[1, 2, 3, "prince"]
My one and a half penny:
Array.prototype.concat_n_dedupe = function(other_array) {
return this
.concat(other_array) // add second
.reduce(function(uniques, item) { // dedupe all
if (uniques.indexOf(item) == -1) {
uniques.push(item);
}
return uniques;
}, []);
};
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var result = array1.concat_n_dedupe(array2);
console.log(result);
There are so many solutions for merging two arrays.
They can be divided into two main categories(except the use of 3rd party libraries like lodash or underscore.js).
a) combine two arrays and remove duplicated items.
b) filter out items before combining them.
Combine two arrays and remove duplicated items
Combining
// mutable operation(array1 is the combined array)
array1.push(...array2);
array1.unshift(...array2);
// immutable operation
const combined = array1.concat(array2);
const combined = [...array1, ...array2]; // ES6
Unifying
There are many ways to unifying an array, I personally suggest below two methods.
// a little bit tricky
const merged = combined.filter((item, index) => combined.indexOf(item) === index);
const merged = [...new Set(combined)];
Filter out items before combining them
There are also many ways, but I personally suggest the below code due to its simplicity.
const merged = array1.concat(array2.filter(secItem => !array1.includes(secItem)));
You can achieve it simply using Underscore.js's => uniq:
array3 = _.uniq(array1.concat(array2))
console.log(array3)
It will print ["Vijendra", "Singh", "Shakya"].
you can use new Set to remove duplication
[...new Set([...array1 ,...array2])]
New solution ( which uses Array.prototype.indexOf and Array.prototype.concat ):
Array.prototype.uniqueMerge = function( a ) {
for ( var nonDuplicates = [], i = 0, l = a.length; i<l; ++i ) {
if ( this.indexOf( a[i] ) === -1 ) {
nonDuplicates.push( a[i] );
}
}
return this.concat( nonDuplicates )
};
Usage:
>>> ['Vijendra', 'Singh'].uniqueMerge(['Singh', 'Shakya'])
["Vijendra", "Singh", "Shakya"]
Array.prototype.indexOf ( for internet explorer ):
Array.prototype.indexOf = Array.prototype.indexOf || function(elt)
{
var len = this.length >>> 0;
var from = Number(arguments[1]) || 0;
from = (from < 0) ? Math.ceil(from): Math.floor(from);
if (from < 0)from += len;
for (; from < len; from++)
{
if (from in this && this[from] === elt)return from;
}
return -1;
};
It can be done using Set.
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var array3 = array1.concat(array2);
var tempSet = new Set(array3);
array3 = Array.from(tempSet);
//show output
document.body.querySelector("div").innerHTML = JSON.stringify(array3);
<div style="width:100%;height:4rem;line-height:4rem;background-color:steelblue;color:#DDD;text-align:center;font-family:Calibri" >
temp text
</div>
//Array.indexOf was introduced in javascript 1.6 (ECMA-262)
//We need to implement it explicitly for other browsers,
if (!Array.prototype.indexOf)
{
Array.prototype.indexOf = function(elt, from)
{
var len = this.length >>> 0;
for (; from < len; from++)
{
if (from in this &&
this[from] === elt)
return from;
}
return -1;
};
}
//now, on to the problem
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var merged = array1.concat(array2);
var t;
for(i = 0; i < merged.length; i++)
if((t = merged.indexOf(i + 1, merged[i])) != -1)
{
merged.splice(t, 1);
i--;//in case of multiple occurrences
}
Implementation of indexOf method for other browsers is taken from MDC
Array.prototype.add = function(b){
var a = this.concat(); // clone current object
if(!b.push || !b.length) return a; // if b is not an array, or empty, then return a unchanged
if(!a.length) return b.concat(); // if original is empty, return b
// go through all the elements of b
for(var i = 0; i < b.length; i++){
// if b's value is not in a, then add it
if(a.indexOf(b[i]) == -1) a.push(b[i]);
}
return a;
}
// Example:
console.log([1,2,3].add([3, 4, 5])); // will output [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
array1.concat(array2).filter((value, pos, arr)=>arr.indexOf(value)===pos)
The nice thing about this one is performance and that you in general, when working with arrays, are chaining methods like filter, map, etc so you can add that line and it will concat and deduplicate array2 with array1 without needing a reference to the later one (when you are chaining methods you don't have), example:
someSource()
.reduce(...)
.filter(...)
.map(...)
// and now you want to concat array2 and deduplicate:
.concat(array2).filter((value, pos, arr)=>arr.indexOf(value)===pos)
// and keep chaining stuff
.map(...)
.find(...)
// etc
(I don't like to pollute Array.prototype and that would be the only way of respect the chain - defining a new function will break it - so I think something like this is the only way of accomplish that)
A functional approach with ES2015
Following the functional approach a union of two Arrays is just the composition of concat and filter. In order to provide optimal performance we resort to the native Set data type, which is optimized for property lookups.
Anyway, the key question in conjunction with a union function is how to treat duplicates. The following permutations are possible:
Array A + Array B
[unique] + [unique]
[duplicated] + [unique]
[unique] + [duplicated]
[duplicated] + [duplicated]
The first two permutations are easy to handle with a single function. However, the last two are more complicated, since you can't process them as long as you rely on Set lookups. Since switching to plain old Object property lookups would entail a serious performance hit the following implementation just ignores the third and fourth permutation. You would have to build a separate version of union to support them.
// small, reusable auxiliary functions
const comp = f => g => x => f(g(x));
const apply = f => a => f(a);
const flip = f => b => a => f(a) (b);
const concat = xs => y => xs.concat(y);
const afrom = apply(Array.from);
const createSet = xs => new Set(xs);
const filter = f => xs => xs.filter(apply(f));
// de-duplication
const dedupe = comp(afrom) (createSet);
// the actual union function
const union = xs => ys => {
const zs = createSet(xs);
return concat(xs) (
filter(x => zs.has(x)
? false
: zs.add(x)
) (ys));
}
// mock data
const xs = [1,2,2,3,4,5];
const ys = [0,1,2,3,3,4,5,6,6];
// here we go
console.log( "unique/unique", union(dedupe(xs)) (ys) );
console.log( "duplicated/unique", union(xs) (ys) );
From here on it gets trivial to implement an unionn function, which accepts any number of arrays (inspired by naomik's comments):
// small, reusable auxiliary functions
const uncurry = f => (a, b) => f(a) (b);
const foldl = f => acc => xs => xs.reduce(uncurry(f), acc);
const apply = f => a => f(a);
const flip = f => b => a => f(a) (b);
const concat = xs => y => xs.concat(y);
const createSet = xs => new Set(xs);
const filter = f => xs => xs.filter(apply(f));
// union and unionn
const union = xs => ys => {
const zs = createSet(xs);
return concat(xs) (
filter(x => zs.has(x)
? false
: zs.add(x)
) (ys));
}
const unionn = (head, ...tail) => foldl(union) (head) (tail);
// mock data
const xs = [1,2,2,3,4,5];
const ys = [0,1,2,3,3,4,5,6,6];
const zs = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9];
// here we go
console.log( unionn(xs, ys, zs) );
It turns out unionn is just foldl (aka Array.prototype.reduce), which takes union as its reducer. Note: Since the implementation doesn't use an additional accumulator, it will throw an error when you apply it without arguments.
DeDuplicate single or Merge and DeDuplicate multiple array inputs. Example below.
useing ES6 - Set, for of, destructuring
I wrote this simple function which takes multiple array arguments.
Does pretty much the same as the solution above it just have more practical use case. This function doesn't concatenate duplicate values in to one array only so that it can delete them at some later stage.
SHORT FUNCTION DEFINITION ( only 9 lines )
/**
* This function merging only arrays unique values. It does not merges arrays in to array with duplicate values at any stage.
*
* #params ...args Function accept multiple array input (merges them to single array with no duplicates)
* it also can be used to filter duplicates in single array
*/
function arrayDeDuplicate(...args){
let set = new Set(); // init Set object (available as of ES6)
for(let arr of args){ // for of loops through values
arr.map((value) => { // map adds each value to Set object
set.add(value); // set.add method adds only unique values
});
}
return [...set]; // destructuring set object back to array object
// alternativly we culd use: return Array.from(set);
}
USE EXAMPLE CODEPEN:
// SCENARIO
let a = [1,2,3,4,5,6];
let b = [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,10,10];
let c = [43,23,1,2,3];
let d = ['a','b','c','d'];
let e = ['b','c','d','e'];
// USEAGE
let uniqueArrayAll = arrayDeDuplicate(a, b, c, d, e);
let uniqueArraySingle = arrayDeDuplicate(b);
// OUTPUT
console.log(uniqueArrayAll); // [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 43, 23, "a", "b", "c", "d", "e"]
console.log(uniqueArraySingle); // [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
This question already has answers here:
Get all unique values in a JavaScript array (remove duplicates)
(91 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I have a very simple JavaScript array that may or may not contain duplicates.
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
I need to remove the duplicates and put the unique values in a new array.
I could point to all the code that I've tried but I think it's useless because they don't work. I accept jQuery solutions too.
Similar question:
Get all non-unique values (i.e.: duplicate/more than one occurrence) in an array
TL;DR
Using the Set constructor and the spread syntax:
uniq = [...new Set(array)];
( Note that var uniq will be an array... new Set() turns it into a set, but [... ] turns it back into an array again )
"Smart" but naïve way
uniqueArray = a.filter(function(item, pos) {
return a.indexOf(item) == pos;
})
Basically, we iterate over the array and, for each element, check if the first position of this element in the array is equal to the current position. Obviously, these two positions are different for duplicate elements.
Using the 3rd ("this array") parameter of the filter callback we can avoid a closure of the array variable:
uniqueArray = a.filter(function(item, pos, self) {
return self.indexOf(item) == pos;
})
Although concise, this algorithm is not particularly efficient for large arrays (quadratic time).
Hashtables to the rescue
function uniq(a) {
var seen = {};
return a.filter(function(item) {
return seen.hasOwnProperty(item) ? false : (seen[item] = true);
});
}
This is how it's usually done. The idea is to place each element in a hashtable and then check for its presence instantly. This gives us linear time, but has at least two drawbacks:
since hash keys can only be strings or symbols in JavaScript, this code doesn't distinguish numbers and "numeric strings". That is, uniq([1,"1"]) will return just [1]
for the same reason, all objects will be considered equal: uniq([{foo:1},{foo:2}]) will return just [{foo:1}].
That said, if your arrays contain only primitives and you don't care about types (e.g. it's always numbers), this solution is optimal.
The best from two worlds
A universal solution combines both approaches: it uses hash lookups for primitives and linear search for objects.
function uniq(a) {
var prims = {"boolean":{}, "number":{}, "string":{}}, objs = [];
return a.filter(function(item) {
var type = typeof item;
if(type in prims)
return prims[type].hasOwnProperty(item) ? false : (prims[type][item] = true);
else
return objs.indexOf(item) >= 0 ? false : objs.push(item);
});
}
sort | uniq
Another option is to sort the array first, and then remove each element equal to the preceding one:
function uniq(a) {
return a.sort().filter(function(item, pos, ary) {
return !pos || item != ary[pos - 1];
});
}
Again, this doesn't work with objects (because all objects are equal for sort). Additionally, we silently change the original array as a side effect - not good! However, if your input is already sorted, this is the way to go (just remove sort from the above).
Unique by...
Sometimes it's desired to uniquify a list based on some criteria other than just equality, for example, to filter out objects that are different, but share some property. This can be done elegantly by passing a callback. This "key" callback is applied to each element, and elements with equal "keys" are removed. Since key is expected to return a primitive, hash table will work fine here:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
var seen = {};
return a.filter(function(item) {
var k = key(item);
return seen.hasOwnProperty(k) ? false : (seen[k] = true);
})
}
A particularly useful key() is JSON.stringify which will remove objects that are physically different, but "look" the same:
a = [[1,2,3], [4,5,6], [1,2,3]]
b = uniqBy(a, JSON.stringify)
console.log(b) // [[1,2,3], [4,5,6]]
If the key is not primitive, you have to resort to the linear search:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
var index = [];
return a.filter(function (item) {
var k = key(item);
return index.indexOf(k) >= 0 ? false : index.push(k);
});
}
In ES6 you can use a Set:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
let seen = new Set();
return a.filter(item => {
let k = key(item);
return seen.has(k) ? false : seen.add(k);
});
}
or a Map:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
return [
...new Map(
a.map(x => [key(x), x])
).values()
]
}
which both also work with non-primitive keys.
First or last?
When removing objects by a key, you might to want to keep the first of "equal" objects or the last one.
Use the Set variant above to keep the first, and the Map to keep the last:
function uniqByKeepFirst(a, key) {
let seen = new Set();
return a.filter(item => {
let k = key(item);
return seen.has(k) ? false : seen.add(k);
});
}
function uniqByKeepLast(a, key) {
return [
...new Map(
a.map(x => [key(x), x])
).values()
]
}
//
data = [
{a:1, u:1},
{a:2, u:2},
{a:3, u:3},
{a:4, u:1},
{a:5, u:2},
{a:6, u:3},
];
console.log(uniqByKeepFirst(data, it => it.u))
console.log(uniqByKeepLast(data, it => it.u))
Libraries
Both underscore and Lo-Dash provide uniq methods. Their algorithms are basically similar to the first snippet above and boil down to this:
var result = [];
a.forEach(function(item) {
if(result.indexOf(item) < 0) {
result.push(item);
}
});
This is quadratic, but there are nice additional goodies, like wrapping native indexOf, ability to uniqify by a key (iteratee in their parlance), and optimizations for already sorted arrays.
If you're using jQuery and can't stand anything without a dollar before it, it goes like this:
$.uniqArray = function(a) {
return $.grep(a, function(item, pos) {
return $.inArray(item, a) === pos;
});
}
which is, again, a variation of the first snippet.
Performance
Function calls are expensive in JavaScript, therefore the above solutions, as concise as they are, are not particularly efficient. For maximal performance, replace filter with a loop and get rid of other function calls:
function uniq_fast(a) {
var seen = {};
var out = [];
var len = a.length;
var j = 0;
for(var i = 0; i < len; i++) {
var item = a[i];
if(seen[item] !== 1) {
seen[item] = 1;
out[j++] = item;
}
}
return out;
}
This chunk of ugly code does the same as the snippet #3 above, but an order of magnitude faster (as of 2017 it's only twice as fast - JS core folks are doing a great job!)
function uniq(a) {
var seen = {};
return a.filter(function(item) {
return seen.hasOwnProperty(item) ? false : (seen[item] = true);
});
}
function uniq_fast(a) {
var seen = {};
var out = [];
var len = a.length;
var j = 0;
for(var i = 0; i < len; i++) {
var item = a[i];
if(seen[item] !== 1) {
seen[item] = 1;
out[j++] = item;
}
}
return out;
}
/////
var r = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9],
a = [],
LEN = 1000,
LOOPS = 1000;
while(LEN--)
a = a.concat(r);
var d = new Date();
for(var i = 0; i < LOOPS; i++)
uniq(a);
document.write('<br>uniq, ms/loop: ' + (new Date() - d)/LOOPS)
var d = new Date();
for(var i = 0; i < LOOPS; i++)
uniq_fast(a);
document.write('<br>uniq_fast, ms/loop: ' + (new Date() - d)/LOOPS)
ES6
ES6 provides the Set object, which makes things a whole lot easier:
function uniq(a) {
return Array.from(new Set(a));
}
or
let uniq = a => [...new Set(a)];
Note that, unlike in python, ES6 sets are iterated in insertion order, so this code preserves the order of the original array.
However, if you need an array with unique elements, why not use sets right from the beginning?
Generators
A "lazy", generator-based version of uniq can be built on the same basis:
take the next value from the argument
if it's been seen already, skip it
otherwise, yield it and add it to the set of already seen values
function* uniqIter(a) {
let seen = new Set();
for (let x of a) {
if (!seen.has(x)) {
seen.add(x);
yield x;
}
}
}
// example:
function* randomsBelow(limit) {
while (1)
yield Math.floor(Math.random() * limit);
}
// note that randomsBelow is endless
count = 20;
limit = 30;
for (let r of uniqIter(randomsBelow(limit))) {
console.log(r);
if (--count === 0)
break
}
// exercise for the reader: what happens if we set `limit` less than `count` and why
Quick and dirty using jQuery:
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
var uniqueNames = [];
$.each(names, function(i, el){
if($.inArray(el, uniqueNames) === -1) uniqueNames.push(el);
});
Got tired of seeing all bad examples with for-loops or jQuery. Javascript has the perfect tools for this nowadays: sort, map and reduce.
Uniq reduce while keeping existing order
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
var uniq = names.reduce(function(a,b){
if (a.indexOf(b) < 0 ) a.push(b);
return a;
},[]);
console.log(uniq, names) // [ 'Mike', 'Matt', 'Nancy', 'Adam', 'Jenny', 'Carl' ]
// one liner
return names.reduce(function(a,b){if(a.indexOf(b)<0)a.push(b);return a;},[]);
Faster uniq with sorting
There are probably faster ways but this one is pretty decent.
var uniq = names.slice() // slice makes copy of array before sorting it
.sort(function(a,b){
return a > b;
})
.reduce(function(a,b){
if (a.slice(-1)[0] !== b) a.push(b); // slice(-1)[0] means last item in array without removing it (like .pop())
return a;
},[]); // this empty array becomes the starting value for a
// one liner
return names.slice().sort(function(a,b){return a > b}).reduce(function(a,b){if (a.slice(-1)[0] !== b) a.push(b);return a;},[]);
Update 2015: ES6 version:
In ES6 you have Sets and Spread which makes it very easy and performant to remove all duplicates:
var uniq = [ ...new Set(names) ]; // [ 'Mike', 'Matt', 'Nancy', 'Adam', 'Jenny', 'Carl' ]
Sort based on occurrence:
Someone asked about ordering the results based on how many unique names there are:
var names = ['Mike', 'Matt', 'Nancy', 'Adam', 'Jenny', 'Nancy', 'Carl']
var uniq = names
.map((name) => {
return {count: 1, name: name}
})
.reduce((a, b) => {
a[b.name] = (a[b.name] || 0) + b.count
return a
}, {})
var sorted = Object.keys(uniq).sort((a, b) => uniq[a] < uniq[b])
console.log(sorted)
Vanilla JS: Remove duplicates using an Object like a Set
You can always try putting it into an object, and then iterating through its keys:
function remove_duplicates(arr) {
var obj = {};
var ret_arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
obj[arr[i]] = true;
}
for (var key in obj) {
ret_arr.push(key);
}
return ret_arr;
}
Vanilla JS: Remove duplicates by tracking already seen values (order-safe)
Or, for an order-safe version, use an object to store all previously seen values, and check values against it before before adding to an array.
function remove_duplicates_safe(arr) {
var seen = {};
var ret_arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
if (!(arr[i] in seen)) {
ret_arr.push(arr[i]);
seen[arr[i]] = true;
}
}
return ret_arr;
}
ECMAScript 6: Use the new Set data structure (order-safe)
ECMAScript 6 adds the new Set Data-Structure, which lets you store values of any type. Set.values returns elements in insertion order.
function remove_duplicates_es6(arr) {
let s = new Set(arr);
let it = s.values();
return Array.from(it);
}
Example usage:
a = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
b = remove_duplicates(a);
// b:
// ["Adam", "Carl", "Jenny", "Matt", "Mike", "Nancy"]
c = remove_duplicates_safe(a);
// c:
// ["Mike", "Matt", "Nancy", "Adam", "Jenny", "Carl"]
d = remove_duplicates_es6(a);
// d:
// ["Mike", "Matt", "Nancy", "Adam", "Jenny", "Carl"]
A single line version using array .filter and .indexOf function:
arr = arr.filter(function (value, index, array) {
return array.indexOf(value) === index;
});
Use Underscore.js
It's a library with a host of functions for manipulating arrays.
It's the tie to go along with jQuery's tux, and Backbone.js's
suspenders.
_.uniq
_.uniq(array, [isSorted], [iterator]) Alias: unique
Produces a duplicate-free version of the array, using === to test object
equality. If you know in advance that the array is sorted, passing
true for isSorted will run a much faster algorithm. If you want to
compute unique items based on a transformation, pass an iterator
function.
Example
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
alert(_.uniq(names, false));
Note: Lo-Dash (an underscore competitor) also offers a comparable .uniq implementation.
One line:
let names = ['Mike','Matt','Nancy','Adam','Jenny','Nancy','Carl', 'Nancy'];
let dup = [...new Set(names)];
console.log(dup);
You can simply do it in JavaScript, with the help of the second - index - parameter of the filter method:
var a = [2,3,4,5,5,4];
a.filter(function(value, index){ return a.indexOf(value) == index });
or in short hand
a.filter((v,i) => a.indexOf(v) == i)
use Array.filter() like this
var actualArr = ['Apple', 'Apple', 'Banana', 'Mango', 'Strawberry', 'Banana'];
console.log('Actual Array: ' + actualArr);
var filteredArr = actualArr.filter(function(item, index) {
if (actualArr.indexOf(item) == index)
return item;
});
console.log('Filtered Array: ' + filteredArr);
this can be made shorter in ES6 to
actualArr.filter((item,index,self) => self.indexOf(item)==index);
Here is nice explanation of Array.filter()
The most concise way to remove duplicates from an array using native javascript functions is to use a sequence like below:
vals.sort().reduce(function(a, b){ if (b != a[0]) a.unshift(b); return a }, [])
there's no need for slice nor indexOf within the reduce function, like i've seen in other examples! it makes sense to use it along with a filter function though:
vals.filter(function(v, i, a){ return i == a.indexOf(v) })
Yet another ES6(2015) way of doing this that already works on a few browsers is:
Array.from(new Set(vals))
or even using the spread operator:
[...new Set(vals)]
cheers!
The top answers have complexity of O(n²), but this can be done with just O(n) by using an object as a hash:
function getDistinctArray(arr) {
var dups = {};
return arr.filter(function(el) {
var hash = el.valueOf();
var isDup = dups[hash];
dups[hash] = true;
return !isDup;
});
}
This will work for strings, numbers, and dates. If your array contains objects, the above solution won't work because when coerced to a string, they will all have a value of "[object Object]" (or something similar) and that isn't suitable as a lookup value. You can get an O(n) implementation for objects by setting a flag on the object itself:
function getDistinctObjArray(arr) {
var distinctArr = arr.filter(function(el) {
var isDup = el.inArray;
el.inArray = true;
return !isDup;
});
distinctArr.forEach(function(el) {
delete el.inArray;
});
return distinctArr;
}
2019 edit: Modern versions of JavaScript make this a much easier problem to solve. Using Set will work, regardless of whether your array contains objects, strings, numbers, or any other type.
function getDistinctArray(arr) {
return [...new Set(arr)];
}
The implementation is so simple, defining a function is no longer warranted.
Simplest One I've run into so far. In es6.
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl", "Mike", "Nancy"]
var noDupe = Array.from(new Set(names))
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Set
In ECMAScript 6 (aka ECMAScript 2015), Set can be used to filter out duplicates. Then it can be converted back to an array using the spread operator.
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"],
unique = [...new Set(names)];
Solution 1
Array.prototype.unique = function() {
var a = [];
for (i = 0; i < this.length; i++) {
var current = this[i];
if (a.indexOf(current) < 0) a.push(current);
}
return a;
}
Solution 2 (using Set)
Array.prototype.unique = function() {
return Array.from(new Set(this));
}
Test
var x=[1,2,3,3,2,1];
x.unique() //[1,2,3]
Performance
When I tested both implementation (with and without Set) for performance in chrome, I found that the one with Set is much much faster!
Array.prototype.unique1 = function() {
var a = [];
for (i = 0; i < this.length; i++) {
var current = this[i];
if (a.indexOf(current) < 0) a.push(current);
}
return a;
}
Array.prototype.unique2 = function() {
return Array.from(new Set(this));
}
var x=[];
for(var i=0;i<10000;i++){
x.push("x"+i);x.push("x"+(i+1));
}
console.time("unique1");
console.log(x.unique1());
console.timeEnd("unique1");
console.time("unique2");
console.log(x.unique2());
console.timeEnd("unique2");
Go for this one:
var uniqueArray = duplicateArray.filter(function(elem, pos) {
return duplicateArray.indexOf(elem) == pos;
});
Now uniqueArray contains no duplicates.
The following is more than 80% faster than the jQuery method listed (see tests below).
It is an answer from a similar question a few years ago. If I come across the person who originally proposed it I will post credit.
Pure JS.
var temp = {};
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++)
temp[array[i]] = true;
var r = [];
for (var k in temp)
r.push(k);
return r;
My test case comparison:
http://jsperf.com/remove-duplicate-array-tests
I had done a detailed comparison of dupes removal at some other question but having noticed that this is the real place i just wanted to share it here as well.
I believe this is the best way to do this
var myArray = [100, 200, 100, 200, 100, 100, 200, 200, 200, 200],
reduced = Object.keys(myArray.reduce((p,c) => (p[c] = true,p),{}));
console.log(reduced);
OK .. even though this one is O(n) and the others are O(n^2) i was curious to see benchmark comparison between this reduce / look up table and filter/indexOf combo (I choose Jeetendras very nice implementation https://stackoverflow.com/a/37441144/4543207). I prepare a 100K item array filled with random positive integers in range 0-9999 and and it removes the duplicates. I repeat the test for 10 times and the average of the results show that they are no match in performance.
In firefox v47 reduce & lut : 14.85ms vs filter & indexOf : 2836ms
In chrome v51 reduce & lut : 23.90ms vs filter & indexOf : 1066ms
Well ok so far so good. But let's do it properly this time in the ES6 style. It looks so cool..! But as of now how it will perform against the powerful lut solution is a mystery to me. Lets first see the code and then benchmark it.
var myArray = [100, 200, 100, 200, 100, 100, 200, 200, 200, 200],
reduced = [...myArray.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()];
console.log(reduced);
Wow that was short..! But how about the performance..? It's beautiful... Since the heavy weight of the filter / indexOf lifted over our shoulders now i can test an array 1M random items of positive integers in range 0..99999 to get an average from 10 consecutive tests. I can say this time it's a real match. See the result for yourself :)
var ranar = [],
red1 = a => Object.keys(a.reduce((p,c) => (p[c] = true,p),{})),
red2 = a => reduced = [...a.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()],
avg1 = [],
avg2 = [],
ts = 0,
te = 0,
res1 = [],
res2 = [],
count= 10;
for (var i = 0; i<count; i++){
ranar = (new Array(1000000).fill(true)).map(e => Math.floor(Math.random()*100000));
ts = performance.now();
res1 = red1(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg1.push(te-ts);
ts = performance.now();
res2 = red2(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg2.push(te-ts);
}
avg1 = avg1.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
avg2 = avg2.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
console.log("reduce & lut took: " + avg1 + "msec");
console.log("map & spread took: " + avg2 + "msec");
Which one would you use..? Well not so fast...! Don't be deceived. Map is at displacement. Now look... in all of the above cases we fill an array of size n with numbers of range < n. I mean we have an array of size 100 and we fill with random numbers 0..9 so there are definite duplicates and "almost" definitely each number has a duplicate. How about if we fill the array in size 100 with random numbers 0..9999. Let's now see Map playing at home. This time an Array of 100K items but random number range is 0..100M. We will do 100 consecutive tests to average the results. OK let's see the bets..! <- no typo
var ranar = [],
red1 = a => Object.keys(a.reduce((p,c) => (p[c] = true,p),{})),
red2 = a => reduced = [...a.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()],
avg1 = [],
avg2 = [],
ts = 0,
te = 0,
res1 = [],
res2 = [],
count= 100;
for (var i = 0; i<count; i++){
ranar = (new Array(100000).fill(true)).map(e => Math.floor(Math.random()*100000000));
ts = performance.now();
res1 = red1(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg1.push(te-ts);
ts = performance.now();
res2 = red2(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg2.push(te-ts);
}
avg1 = avg1.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
avg2 = avg2.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
console.log("reduce & lut took: " + avg1 + "msec");
console.log("map & spread took: " + avg2 + "msec");
Now this is the spectacular comeback of Map()..! May be now you can make a better decision when you want to remove the dupes.
Well ok we are all happy now. But the lead role always comes last with some applause. I am sure some of you wonder what Set object would do. Now that since we are open to ES6 and we know Map is the winner of the previous games let us compare Map with Set as a final. A typical Real Madrid vs Barcelona game this time... or is it? Let's see who will win the el classico :)
var ranar = [],
red1 = a => reduced = [...a.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()],
red2 = a => Array.from(new Set(a)),
avg1 = [],
avg2 = [],
ts = 0,
te = 0,
res1 = [],
res2 = [],
count= 100;
for (var i = 0; i<count; i++){
ranar = (new Array(100000).fill(true)).map(e => Math.floor(Math.random()*10000000));
ts = performance.now();
res1 = red1(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg1.push(te-ts);
ts = performance.now();
res2 = red2(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg2.push(te-ts);
}
avg1 = avg1.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
avg2 = avg2.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
console.log("map & spread took: " + avg1 + "msec");
console.log("set & A.from took: " + avg2 + "msec");
Wow.. man..! Well unexpectedly it didn't turn out to be an el classico at all. More like Barcelona FC against CA Osasuna :))
Here is a simple answer to the question.
var names = ["Alex","Tony","James","Suzane", "Marie", "Laurence", "Alex", "Suzane", "Marie", "Marie", "James", "Tony", "Alex"];
var uniqueNames = [];
for(var i in names){
if(uniqueNames.indexOf(names[i]) === -1){
uniqueNames.push(names[i]);
}
}
A simple but effective technique, is to use the filter method in combination with the filter function(value, index){ return this.indexOf(value) == index }.
Code example :
var data = [2,3,4,5,5,4];
var filter = function(value, index){ return this.indexOf(value) == index };
var filteredData = data.filter(filter, data );
document.body.innerHTML = '<pre>' + JSON.stringify(filteredData, null, '\t') + '</pre>';
See also this Fiddle.
So the options is:
let a = [11,22,11,22];
let b = []
b = [ ...new Set(a) ];
// b = [11, 22]
b = Array.from( new Set(a))
// b = [11, 22]
b = a.filter((val,i)=>{
return a.indexOf(val)==i
})
// b = [11, 22]
Here is very simple for understanding and working anywhere (even in PhotoshopScript) code. Check it!
var peoplenames = new Array("Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl");
peoplenames = unique(peoplenames);
alert(peoplenames);
function unique(array){
var len = array.length;
for(var i = 0; i < len; i++) for(var j = i + 1; j < len; j++)
if(array[j] == array[i]){
array.splice(j,1);
j--;
len--;
}
return array;
}
//*result* peoplenames == ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Carl"]
here is the simple method without any special libraries are special function,
name_list = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
get_uniq = name_list.filter(function(val,ind) { return name_list.indexOf(val) == ind; })
console.log("Original name list:"+name_list.length, name_list)
console.log("\n Unique name list:"+get_uniq.length, get_uniq)
Apart from being a simpler, more terse solution than the current answers (minus the future-looking ES6 ones), I perf tested this and it was much faster as well:
var uniqueArray = dupeArray.filter(function(item, i, self){
return self.lastIndexOf(item) == i;
});
One caveat: Array.lastIndexOf() was added in IE9, so if you need to go lower than that, you'll need to look elsewhere.
Generic Functional Approach
Here is a generic and strictly functional approach with ES2015:
// small, reusable auxiliary functions
const apply = f => a => f(a);
const flip = f => b => a => f(a) (b);
const uncurry = f => (a, b) => f(a) (b);
const push = x => xs => (xs.push(x), xs);
const foldl = f => acc => xs => xs.reduce(uncurry(f), acc);
const some = f => xs => xs.some(apply(f));
// the actual de-duplicate function
const uniqueBy = f => foldl(
acc => x => some(f(x)) (acc)
? acc
: push(x) (acc)
) ([]);
// comparators
const eq = y => x => x === y;
// string equality case insensitive :D
const seqCI = y => x => x.toLowerCase() === y.toLowerCase();
// mock data
const xs = [1,2,3,1,2,3,4];
const ys = ["a", "b", "c", "A", "B", "C", "D"];
console.log( uniqueBy(eq) (xs) );
console.log( uniqueBy(seqCI) (ys) );
We can easily derive unique from unqiueBy or use the faster implementation utilizing Sets:
const unqiue = uniqueBy(eq);
// const unique = xs => Array.from(new Set(xs));
Benefits of this approach:
generic solution by using a separate comparator function
declarative and succinct implementation
reuse of other small, generic functions
Performance Considerations
uniqueBy isn't as fast as an imperative implementation with loops, but it is way more expressive due to its genericity.
If you identify uniqueBy as the cause of a concrete performance penalty in your app, replace it with optimized code. That is, write your code first in an functional, declarative way. Afterwards, provided that you encounter performance issues, try to optimize the code at the locations, which are the cause of the problem.
Memory Consumption and Garbage Collection
uniqueBy utilizes mutations (push(x) (acc)) hidden inside its body. It reuses the accumulator instead of throwing it away after each iteration. This reduces memory consumption and GC pressure. Since this side effect is wrapped inside the function, everything outside remains pure.
for (i=0; i<originalArray.length; i++) {
if (!newArray.includes(originalArray[i])) {
newArray.push(originalArray[i]);
}
}
The following script returns a new array containing only unique values. It works on string and numbers. No requirement for additional libraries only vanilla JS.
Browser support:
Feature Chrome Firefox (Gecko) Internet Explorer Opera Safari
Basic support (Yes) 1.5 (1.8) 9 (Yes) (Yes)
https://jsfiddle.net/fzmcgcxv/3/
var duplicates = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl","Mike","Mike","Nancy","Carl"];
var unique = duplicates.filter(function(elem, pos) {
return duplicates.indexOf(elem) == pos;
});
alert(unique);
If by any chance you were using
D3.js
You could do
d3.set(["foo", "bar", "foo", "baz"]).values() ==> ["foo", "bar", "baz"]
https://github.com/mbostock/d3/wiki/Arrays#set_values
A slight modification of thg435's excellent answer to use a custom comparator:
function contains(array, obj) {
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
if (isEqual(array[i], obj)) return true;
}
return false;
}
//comparator
function isEqual(obj1, obj2) {
if (obj1.name == obj2.name) return true;
return false;
}
function removeDuplicates(ary) {
var arr = [];
return ary.filter(function(x) {
return !contains(arr, x) && arr.push(x);
});
}
$(document).ready(function() {
var arr1=["dog","dog","fish","cat","cat","fish","apple","orange"]
var arr2=["cat","fish","mango","apple"]
var uniquevalue=[];
var seconduniquevalue=[];
var finalarray=[];
$.each(arr1,function(key,value){
if($.inArray (value,uniquevalue) === -1)
{
uniquevalue.push(value)
}
});
$.each(arr2,function(key,value){
if($.inArray (value,seconduniquevalue) === -1)
{
seconduniquevalue.push(value)
}
});
$.each(uniquevalue,function(ikey,ivalue){
$.each(seconduniquevalue,function(ukey,uvalue){
if( ivalue == uvalue)
{
finalarray.push(ivalue);
}
});
});
alert(finalarray);
});
https://jsfiddle.net/2w0k5tz8/
function remove_duplicates(array_){
var ret_array = new Array();
for (var a = array_.length - 1; a >= 0; a--) {
for (var b = array_.length - 1; b >= 0; b--) {
if(array_[a] == array_[b] && a != b){
delete array_[b];
}
};
if(array_[a] != undefined)
ret_array.push(array_[a]);
};
return ret_array;
}
console.log(remove_duplicates(Array(1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3)));
Loop through, remove duplicates, and create a clone array place holder because the array index will not be updated.
Loop backward for better performance ( your loop wont need to keep checking the length of your array)
I have two JavaScript arrays:
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
I want the output to be:
var array3 = ["Vijendra","Singh","Shakya"];
The output array should have repeated words removed.
How do I merge two arrays in JavaScript so that I get only the unique items from each array in the same order they were inserted into the original arrays?
To just merge the arrays (without removing duplicates)
ES5 version use Array.concat:
var array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
array1 = array1.concat(array2);
console.log(array1);
ES6 version use destructuring
const array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
const array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
const array3 = [...array1, ...array2];
Since there is no 'built in' way to remove duplicates (ECMA-262 actually has Array.forEach which would be great for this), we have to do it manually:
Array.prototype.unique = function() {
var a = this.concat();
for(var i=0; i<a.length; ++i) {
for(var j=i+1; j<a.length; ++j) {
if(a[i] === a[j])
a.splice(j--, 1);
}
}
return a;
};
Then, to use it:
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
// Merges both arrays and gets unique items
var array3 = array1.concat(array2).unique();
This will also preserve the order of the arrays (i.e, no sorting needed).
Since many people are annoyed about prototype augmentation of Array.prototype and for in loops, here is a less invasive way to use it:
function arrayUnique(array) {
var a = array.concat();
for(var i=0; i<a.length; ++i) {
for(var j=i+1; j<a.length; ++j) {
if(a[i] === a[j])
a.splice(j--, 1);
}
}
return a;
}
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
// Merges both arrays and gets unique items
var array3 = arrayUnique(array1.concat(array2));
For those who are fortunate enough to work with browsers where ES5 is available, you can use Object.defineProperty like this:
Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, 'unique', {
enumerable: false,
configurable: false,
writable: false,
value: function() {
var a = this.concat();
for(var i=0; i<a.length; ++i) {
for(var j=i+1; j<a.length; ++j) {
if(a[i] === a[j])
a.splice(j--, 1);
}
}
return a;
}
});
With Underscore.js or Lo-Dash you can do:
console.log(_.union([1, 2, 3], [101, 2, 1, 10], [2, 1]));
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.min.js"></script>
http://underscorejs.org/#union
http://lodash.com/docs#union
First concatenate the two arrays, next filter out only the unique items:
var a = [1, 2, 3], b = [101, 2, 1, 10]
var c = a.concat(b)
var d = c.filter((item, pos) => c.indexOf(item) === pos)
console.log(d) // d is [1, 2, 3, 101, 10]
Edit
As suggested a more performance wise solution would be to filter out the unique items in b before concatenating with a:
var a = [1, 2, 3], b = [101, 2, 1, 10]
var c = a.concat(b.filter((item) => a.indexOf(item) < 0))
console.log(c) // c is [1, 2, 3, 101, 10]
[...array1,...array2] // => don't remove duplication
OR
[...new Set([...array1 ,...array2])]; // => remove duplication
This is an ECMAScript 6 solution using spread operator and array generics.
Currently it only works with Firefox, and possibly Internet Explorer Technical Preview.
But if you use Babel, you can have it now.
const input = [
[1, 2, 3],
[101, 2, 1, 10],
[2, 1]
];
const mergeDedupe = (arr) => {
return [...new Set([].concat(...arr))];
}
console.log('output', mergeDedupe(input));
Using a Set (ECMAScript 2015), it will be as simple as that:
const array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
const array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
console.log(Array.from(new Set(array1.concat(array2))));
You can do it simply with ECMAScript 6,
var array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var array3 = [...new Set([...array1 ,...array2])];
console.log(array3); // ["Vijendra", "Singh", "Shakya"];
Use the spread operator for concatenating the array.
Use Set for creating a distinct set of elements.
Again use the spread operator to convert the Set into an array.
Here is a slightly different take on the loop. With some of the optimizations in the latest version of Chrome, it is the fastest method for resolving the union of the two arrays (Chrome 38.0.2111).
JSPerf: "Merge two arrays keeping only unique values" (archived)
var array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var array3 = [];
var arr = array1.concat(array2),
len = arr.length;
while (len--) {
var itm = arr[len];
if (array3.indexOf(itm) === -1) {
array3.unshift(itm);
}
}
while loop: ~589k ops/s
filter: ~445k ops/s
lodash: 308k ops/s
for loops: 225k ops/s
A comment pointed out that one of my setup variables was causing my loop to pull ahead of the rest because it didn't have to initialize an empty array to write to. I agree with that, so I've rewritten the test to even the playing field, and included an even faster option.
JSPerf: "Merge two arrays keeping only unique values" (archived)
let whileLoopAlt = function (array1, array2) {
const array3 = array1.slice(0);
let len1 = array1.length;
let len2 = array2.length;
const assoc = {};
while (len1--) {
assoc[array1[len1]] = null;
}
while (len2--) {
let itm = array2[len2];
if (assoc[itm] === undefined) { // Eliminate the indexOf call
array3.push(itm);
assoc[itm] = null;
}
}
return array3;
};
In this alternate solution, I've combined one answer's associative array solution to eliminate the .indexOf() call in the loop which was slowing things down a lot with a second loop, and included some of the other optimizations that other users have suggested in their answers as well.
The top answer here with the double loop on every value (i-1) is still significantly slower. lodash is still doing strong, and I still would recommend it to anyone who doesn't mind adding a library to their project. For those who don't want to, my while loop is still a good answer and the filter answer has a very strong showing here, beating out all on my tests with the latest Canary Chrome (44.0.2360) as of this writing.
Check out Mike's answer and Dan Stocker's answer if you want to step it up a notch in speed. Those are by far the fastest of all results after going through almost all of the viable answers.
I simplified the best of this answer and turned it into a nice function:
function mergeUnique(arr1, arr2){
return arr1.concat(arr2.filter(function (item) {
return arr1.indexOf(item) === -1;
}));
}
The ES6 offers a single-line solution for merging multiple arrays without duplicates by using destructuring and set.
const array1 = ['a','b','c'];
const array2 = ['c','c','d','e'];
const array3 = [...new Set([...array1,...array2])];
console.log(array3); // ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e"]
Just throwing in my two cents.
function mergeStringArrays(a, b){
var hash = {};
var ret = [];
for(var i=0; i < a.length; i++){
var e = a[i];
if (!hash[e]){
hash[e] = true;
ret.push(e);
}
}
for(var i=0; i < b.length; i++){
var e = b[i];
if (!hash[e]){
hash[e] = true;
ret.push(e);
}
}
return ret;
}
This is a method I use a lot, it uses an object as a hashlookup table to do the duplicate checking. Assuming that the hash is O(1), then this runs in O(n) where n is a.length + b.length. I honestly have no idea how the browser does the hash, but it performs well on many thousands of data points.
Just steer clear of nested loops (O(n^2)), and .indexOf() (+O(n)).
function merge(a, b) {
var hash = {};
var i;
for (i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
hash[a[i]] = true;
}
for (i = 0; i < b.length; i++) {
hash[b[i]] = true;
}
return Object.keys(hash);
}
var array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var array3 = merge(array1, array2);
console.log(array3);
I know this question is not about array of objects, but searchers do end up here.
so it's worth adding for future readers a proper ES6 way of merging and then removing duplicates
array of objects:
var arr1 = [ {a: 1}, {a: 2}, {a: 3} ];
var arr2 = [ {a: 1}, {a: 2}, {a: 4} ];
var arr3 = arr1.concat(arr2.filter( ({a}) => !arr1.find(f => f.a == a) ));
// [ {a: 1}, {a: 2}, {a: 3}, {a: 4} ]
EDIT:
The first solution is the fastest only when there are few items. When there are over 400 items, the Set solution becomes the fastest. And when there are 100,000 items, it is a thousand times faster than the first solution.
Considering that performance is important only when there is a lot of items, and that the Set solution is by far the most readable, it should be the right solution in most cases
The perf results below were computed with a small number of items
Based on jsperf, the fastest way (edit: if there are less than 400 items) to merge two arrays in a new one is the following:
for (var i = 0; i < array2.length; i++)
if (array1.indexOf(array2[i]) === -1)
array1.push(array2[i]);
This one is 17% slower:
array2.forEach(v => array1.includes(v) ? null : array1.push(v));
This one is 45% slower (edit: when there is less than 100 items. It is a lot faster when there is a lot of items):
var a = [...new Set([...array1 ,...array2])];
And the accepted answer's is 55% slower (and much longer to write) (edit: and it is several order of magnitude slower than any of the other methods when there are 100,000 items)
var a = array1.concat(array2);
for (var i = 0; i < a.length; ++i) {
for (var j = i + 1; j < a.length; ++j) {
if (a[i] === a[j])
a.splice(j--, 1);
}
}
https://jsbench.me/lxlej18ydg
Array.prototype.merge = function(/* variable number of arrays */){
for(var i = 0; i < arguments.length; i++){
var array = arguments[i];
for(var j = 0; j < array.length; j++){
if(this.indexOf(array[j]) === -1) {
this.push(array[j]);
}
}
}
return this;
};
A much better array merge function.
Performance
Today 2020.10.15 I perform tests on MacOs HighSierra 10.13.6 on Chrome v86, Safari v13.1.2 and Firefox v81 for chosen solutions.
Results
For all browsers
solution H is fast/fastest
solutions L is fast
solution D is fastest on chrome for big arrays
solution G is fast on small arrays
solution M is slowest for small arrays
solutions E are slowest for big arrays
Details
I perform 2 tests cases:
for 2 elements arrays - you can run it HERE
for 10000 elements arrays - you can run it HERE
on solutions
A,
B,
C,
D,
E,
G,
H,
J,
L,
M
presented in below snippet
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/10499519/860099
function A(arr1,arr2) {
return _.union(arr1,arr2)
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/53149853/860099
function B(arr1,arr2) {
return _.unionWith(arr1, arr2, _.isEqual);
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/27664971/860099
function C(arr1,arr2) {
return [...new Set([...arr1,...arr2])]
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/48130841/860099
function D(arr1,arr2) {
return Array.from(new Set(arr1.concat(arr2)))
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/23080662/860099
function E(arr1,arr2) {
return arr1.concat(arr2.filter((item) => arr1.indexOf(item) < 0))
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/28631880/860099
function G(arr1,arr2) {
var hash = {};
var i;
for (i = 0; i < arr1.length; i++) {
hash[arr1[i]] = true;
}
for (i = 0; i < arr2.length; i++) {
hash[arr2[i]] = true;
}
return Object.keys(hash);
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/13847481/860099
function H(a, b){
var hash = {};
var ret = [];
for(var i=0; i < a.length; i++){
var e = a[i];
if (!hash[e]){
hash[e] = true;
ret.push(e);
}
}
for(var i=0; i < b.length; i++){
var e = b[i];
if (!hash[e]){
hash[e] = true;
ret.push(e);
}
}
return ret;
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/1584377/860099
function J(arr1,arr2) {
function arrayUnique(array) {
var a = array.concat();
for(var i=0; i<a.length; ++i) {
for(var j=i+1; j<a.length; ++j) {
if(a[i] === a[j])
a.splice(j--, 1);
}
}
return a;
}
return arrayUnique(arr1.concat(arr2));
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/25120770/860099
function L(array1, array2) {
const array3 = array1.slice(0);
let len1 = array1.length;
let len2 = array2.length;
const assoc = {};
while (len1--) {
assoc[array1[len1]] = null;
}
while (len2--) {
let itm = array2[len2];
if (assoc[itm] === undefined) { // Eliminate the indexOf call
array3.push(itm);
assoc[itm] = null;
}
}
return array3;
}
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/39336712/860099
function M(arr1,arr2) {
const comp = f => g => x => f(g(x));
const apply = f => a => f(a);
const flip = f => b => a => f(a) (b);
const concat = xs => y => xs.concat(y);
const afrom = apply(Array.from);
const createSet = xs => new Set(xs);
const filter = f => xs => xs.filter(apply(f));
const dedupe = comp(afrom) (createSet);
const union = xs => ys => {
const zs = createSet(xs);
return concat(xs) (
filter(x => zs.has(x)
? false
: zs.add(x)
) (ys));
}
return union(dedupe(arr1)) (arr2)
}
// -------------
// TEST
// -------------
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
[A,B,C,D,E,G,H,J,L,M].forEach(f=> {
console.log(`${f.name} [${f([...array1],[...array2])}]`);
})
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.20/lodash.min.js" integrity="sha512-90vH1Z83AJY9DmlWa8WkjkV79yfS2n2Oxhsi2dZbIv0nC4E6m5AbH8Nh156kkM7JePmqD6tcZsfad1ueoaovww==" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
This snippet only presents functions used in performance tests - it not perform tests itself!
And here are example test run for chrome
UPDATE
I remove cases F,I,K because they modify input arrays and benchmark gives wrong results
Why don't you use an object? It looks like you're trying to model a set. This won't preserve the order, however.
var set1 = {"Vijendra":true, "Singh":true}
var set2 = {"Singh":true, "Shakya":true}
// Merge second object into first
function merge(set1, set2){
for (var key in set2){
if (set2.hasOwnProperty(key))
set1[key] = set2[key]
}
return set1
}
merge(set1, set2)
// Create set from array
function setify(array){
var result = {}
for (var item in array){
if (array.hasOwnProperty(item))
result[array[item]] = true
}
return result
}
For ES6, just one line:
a = [1, 2, 3, 4]
b = [4, 5]
[...new Set(a.concat(b))] // [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The best solution...
You can check directly in the browser console by hitting...
Without duplicate
a = [1, 2, 3];
b = [3, 2, 1, "prince"];
a.concat(b.filter(function(el) {
return a.indexOf(el) === -1;
}));
With duplicate
["prince", "asish", 5].concat(["ravi", 4])
If you want without duplicate you can try a better solution from here - Shouting Code.
[1, 2, 3].concat([3, 2, 1, "prince"].filter(function(el) {
return [1, 2, 3].indexOf(el) === -1;
}));
Try on Chrome browser console
f12 > console
Output:
["prince", "asish", 5, "ravi", 4]
[1, 2, 3, "prince"]
My one and a half penny:
Array.prototype.concat_n_dedupe = function(other_array) {
return this
.concat(other_array) // add second
.reduce(function(uniques, item) { // dedupe all
if (uniques.indexOf(item) == -1) {
uniques.push(item);
}
return uniques;
}, []);
};
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var result = array1.concat_n_dedupe(array2);
console.log(result);
There are so many solutions for merging two arrays.
They can be divided into two main categories(except the use of 3rd party libraries like lodash or underscore.js).
a) combine two arrays and remove duplicated items.
b) filter out items before combining them.
Combine two arrays and remove duplicated items
Combining
// mutable operation(array1 is the combined array)
array1.push(...array2);
array1.unshift(...array2);
// immutable operation
const combined = array1.concat(array2);
const combined = [...array1, ...array2]; // ES6
Unifying
There are many ways to unifying an array, I personally suggest below two methods.
// a little bit tricky
const merged = combined.filter((item, index) => combined.indexOf(item) === index);
const merged = [...new Set(combined)];
Filter out items before combining them
There are also many ways, but I personally suggest the below code due to its simplicity.
const merged = array1.concat(array2.filter(secItem => !array1.includes(secItem)));
You can achieve it simply using Underscore.js's => uniq:
array3 = _.uniq(array1.concat(array2))
console.log(array3)
It will print ["Vijendra", "Singh", "Shakya"].
you can use new Set to remove duplication
[...new Set([...array1 ,...array2])]
New solution ( which uses Array.prototype.indexOf and Array.prototype.concat ):
Array.prototype.uniqueMerge = function( a ) {
for ( var nonDuplicates = [], i = 0, l = a.length; i<l; ++i ) {
if ( this.indexOf( a[i] ) === -1 ) {
nonDuplicates.push( a[i] );
}
}
return this.concat( nonDuplicates )
};
Usage:
>>> ['Vijendra', 'Singh'].uniqueMerge(['Singh', 'Shakya'])
["Vijendra", "Singh", "Shakya"]
Array.prototype.indexOf ( for internet explorer ):
Array.prototype.indexOf = Array.prototype.indexOf || function(elt)
{
var len = this.length >>> 0;
var from = Number(arguments[1]) || 0;
from = (from < 0) ? Math.ceil(from): Math.floor(from);
if (from < 0)from += len;
for (; from < len; from++)
{
if (from in this && this[from] === elt)return from;
}
return -1;
};
It can be done using Set.
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var array3 = array1.concat(array2);
var tempSet = new Set(array3);
array3 = Array.from(tempSet);
//show output
document.body.querySelector("div").innerHTML = JSON.stringify(array3);
<div style="width:100%;height:4rem;line-height:4rem;background-color:steelblue;color:#DDD;text-align:center;font-family:Calibri" >
temp text
</div>
//Array.indexOf was introduced in javascript 1.6 (ECMA-262)
//We need to implement it explicitly for other browsers,
if (!Array.prototype.indexOf)
{
Array.prototype.indexOf = function(elt, from)
{
var len = this.length >>> 0;
for (; from < len; from++)
{
if (from in this &&
this[from] === elt)
return from;
}
return -1;
};
}
//now, on to the problem
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var merged = array1.concat(array2);
var t;
for(i = 0; i < merged.length; i++)
if((t = merged.indexOf(i + 1, merged[i])) != -1)
{
merged.splice(t, 1);
i--;//in case of multiple occurrences
}
Implementation of indexOf method for other browsers is taken from MDC
Array.prototype.add = function(b){
var a = this.concat(); // clone current object
if(!b.push || !b.length) return a; // if b is not an array, or empty, then return a unchanged
if(!a.length) return b.concat(); // if original is empty, return b
// go through all the elements of b
for(var i = 0; i < b.length; i++){
// if b's value is not in a, then add it
if(a.indexOf(b[i]) == -1) a.push(b[i]);
}
return a;
}
// Example:
console.log([1,2,3].add([3, 4, 5])); // will output [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
array1.concat(array2).filter((value, pos, arr)=>arr.indexOf(value)===pos)
The nice thing about this one is performance and that you in general, when working with arrays, are chaining methods like filter, map, etc so you can add that line and it will concat and deduplicate array2 with array1 without needing a reference to the later one (when you are chaining methods you don't have), example:
someSource()
.reduce(...)
.filter(...)
.map(...)
// and now you want to concat array2 and deduplicate:
.concat(array2).filter((value, pos, arr)=>arr.indexOf(value)===pos)
// and keep chaining stuff
.map(...)
.find(...)
// etc
(I don't like to pollute Array.prototype and that would be the only way of respect the chain - defining a new function will break it - so I think something like this is the only way of accomplish that)
A functional approach with ES2015
Following the functional approach a union of two Arrays is just the composition of concat and filter. In order to provide optimal performance we resort to the native Set data type, which is optimized for property lookups.
Anyway, the key question in conjunction with a union function is how to treat duplicates. The following permutations are possible:
Array A + Array B
[unique] + [unique]
[duplicated] + [unique]
[unique] + [duplicated]
[duplicated] + [duplicated]
The first two permutations are easy to handle with a single function. However, the last two are more complicated, since you can't process them as long as you rely on Set lookups. Since switching to plain old Object property lookups would entail a serious performance hit the following implementation just ignores the third and fourth permutation. You would have to build a separate version of union to support them.
// small, reusable auxiliary functions
const comp = f => g => x => f(g(x));
const apply = f => a => f(a);
const flip = f => b => a => f(a) (b);
const concat = xs => y => xs.concat(y);
const afrom = apply(Array.from);
const createSet = xs => new Set(xs);
const filter = f => xs => xs.filter(apply(f));
// de-duplication
const dedupe = comp(afrom) (createSet);
// the actual union function
const union = xs => ys => {
const zs = createSet(xs);
return concat(xs) (
filter(x => zs.has(x)
? false
: zs.add(x)
) (ys));
}
// mock data
const xs = [1,2,2,3,4,5];
const ys = [0,1,2,3,3,4,5,6,6];
// here we go
console.log( "unique/unique", union(dedupe(xs)) (ys) );
console.log( "duplicated/unique", union(xs) (ys) );
From here on it gets trivial to implement an unionn function, which accepts any number of arrays (inspired by naomik's comments):
// small, reusable auxiliary functions
const uncurry = f => (a, b) => f(a) (b);
const foldl = f => acc => xs => xs.reduce(uncurry(f), acc);
const apply = f => a => f(a);
const flip = f => b => a => f(a) (b);
const concat = xs => y => xs.concat(y);
const createSet = xs => new Set(xs);
const filter = f => xs => xs.filter(apply(f));
// union and unionn
const union = xs => ys => {
const zs = createSet(xs);
return concat(xs) (
filter(x => zs.has(x)
? false
: zs.add(x)
) (ys));
}
const unionn = (head, ...tail) => foldl(union) (head) (tail);
// mock data
const xs = [1,2,2,3,4,5];
const ys = [0,1,2,3,3,4,5,6,6];
const zs = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9];
// here we go
console.log( unionn(xs, ys, zs) );
It turns out unionn is just foldl (aka Array.prototype.reduce), which takes union as its reducer. Note: Since the implementation doesn't use an additional accumulator, it will throw an error when you apply it without arguments.
DeDuplicate single or Merge and DeDuplicate multiple array inputs. Example below.
useing ES6 - Set, for of, destructuring
I wrote this simple function which takes multiple array arguments.
Does pretty much the same as the solution above it just have more practical use case. This function doesn't concatenate duplicate values in to one array only so that it can delete them at some later stage.
SHORT FUNCTION DEFINITION ( only 9 lines )
/**
* This function merging only arrays unique values. It does not merges arrays in to array with duplicate values at any stage.
*
* #params ...args Function accept multiple array input (merges them to single array with no duplicates)
* it also can be used to filter duplicates in single array
*/
function arrayDeDuplicate(...args){
let set = new Set(); // init Set object (available as of ES6)
for(let arr of args){ // for of loops through values
arr.map((value) => { // map adds each value to Set object
set.add(value); // set.add method adds only unique values
});
}
return [...set]; // destructuring set object back to array object
// alternativly we culd use: return Array.from(set);
}
USE EXAMPLE CODEPEN:
// SCENARIO
let a = [1,2,3,4,5,6];
let b = [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,10,10];
let c = [43,23,1,2,3];
let d = ['a','b','c','d'];
let e = ['b','c','d','e'];
// USEAGE
let uniqueArrayAll = arrayDeDuplicate(a, b, c, d, e);
let uniqueArraySingle = arrayDeDuplicate(b);
// OUTPUT
console.log(uniqueArrayAll); // [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 43, 23, "a", "b", "c", "d", "e"]
console.log(uniqueArraySingle); // [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]