Related
For example, suppose I have a multidimensional array:
const a1=[["a",["a","b"]],"b",[["b"],"c"]];
which the flatten from is
const a2=["a","a","b","b","c","c"];
and accessing a2[2] is equivalent to a1[0][1][1], also access a2[3] is equivalent to a1[1].
However I'm not interested in what the element is in such index, instead I want a function that can convert the index of a2 equivalent to in a1, eg:
magicFunction(2,[["a",["a","b"]],"b",[["b"],"c"]])
returns [0,1,1],
also
magicFunction(3,[["a",["a","b"]],"b",[["b"],"c"]])
returns [1]. And the input multidimensional array can be any depth (more than 3 layers). How do I write such magic function?
Note: I know that may be easy to do if I know the array is 2d and the sub-array have same number of elements:
const a1=[["a","a"],["b","b"],["c","c"]];
const magicFunction=function(target,a){
let count=0;
for(let i=0;i<a.length;i++){
for(let j=0;j<a[i].length;j++){
if(count==target){
return [i,j];
}
count++;
}
}
return [];
};
alert(magicFunction(3,a1));
However now I need the function to accept a with n-dimensional array which d is unknown before testing, which I don't know how many layers of for-loop should I write to handle it, also the length of each sub-array may not be the same.
Here's a recursive function that generates the path by traversing the array and counting values until it reaches the n'th value. The function returns either an array of the path (if we reach the n'th value) or the current count (if we don't).
const magicFunction = (index, array, count=0) => {
for (let idx = 0; idx < array.length; idx++) {
if (Array.isArray(array[idx])) {
let res = magicFunction(index, array[idx], count)
if (Array.isArray(res)) return [idx].concat(res)
else count = res
}
else {
if (count == index) return [idx]
count++
}
}
return count
}
for (i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
res = magicFunction(i, [["a",["b","c"]],"d",[["e"],"f"]])
console.log(`${i} : [${res}]`)
}
You can flatten an array into a list of [element path] pairs and fetch paths from that list:
function* flatWithPaths(a, parent=[]) {
for (let [i, e] of a.entries()) {
if (Array.isArray(e))
yield* flatWithPaths(e, parent.concat(i))
else
yield [e, parent.concat(i)]
}
}
//
const a = [["a",["b","c"]],"d",[["e","f"],[[["g","h"]]]]]
let n = 0
for (let [elem, path] of flatWithPaths(a)) {
console.log(n++, elem, path.join())
}
How to write a function to remove certain elements into a new array and leave the original array with only the remaining elements?
the first part is easy using a for loop pushing the even numbers into a new array but mutating the original array to leave only the odd numbers is hard
function remove(arr, cb){
var removed = [];
var newArr = [];
for(var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
if(cb(arr[i], i, arr)) {
removed.push(arr[i]);
}
}
return removed;
}
Use an else statement to fill newArr with values that should stay in the original arr, then empty it using splice() before copying the items from newArr back into it.
function remove (arr, cb) {
var removed = [];
var newArr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
if (cb(arr[i], i, arr)) {
removed.push(arr[i]);
} else {
newArr.push(arr[i]);
}
}
arr.splice(0);
for (var i = 0; i < newArr.length; i++) {
arr.push(newArr[i]);
}
return removed;
}
Welcome to Stackoverflow!
Personally, I'd avoid anything that mutates an input parameter, as this increases code complexity and makes it hard to reason about what's happening from the calling side.
Instead, I'd write a method that returns an array of two arrays. This can be easily split into two variables at the calling end using by using array destructuring.
See the example below:
const splitArr = (arr, pred) =>
arr.reduce(
(prev, curr, idx) => {
prev[+pred(curr, idx, arr)].push(curr);
return prev;
}, [[], []]
);
// usage //
const myArr = [1, 2, 3, 4];
const [arr1, arr2] = splitArr(myArr, x => x > 2);
console.log(arr1);
console.log(arr2);
Because pred is a function that returns a boolean value, we can co-erce this value to 0 or 1 using +someBoolean. We can then use this value as an index to decide into which of the two output arrays the value should be pushed.
You were definitely on the right track with your solution, a couple tweaks and we can make it very readable and also very easy to work with. I tried to keep the format of what it looked like you were doing.
I do take advantage of destructuring here, this could be returned as just an object, and then reference the properties.
const myArr = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10];
const splitItems = (arr, logicFunc) => {
let secondSet = []
const firstSet = arr.filter(v => {
if (logicFunc(v)) return true
else secondSet.push(v)
})
return { firstSet, secondSet }
}
const myLogicFunc = v => (v < 3 || v == 9)
const { firstSet, secondSet } = splitItems(myArr, myLogicFunc)
console.log(`My first set: ${firstSet}`) // My first set: 0,1,2,9
console.log(`My second set: ${secondSet}`) // My second set: 3,4,5,6,7,8,10
/* OR without destructuring:
const myArrays = splitItems(myArr, myLogicFunc)
console.log(`My first set: ${myArrays.firstSet}`)
console.log(`My second set: ${myArrays.secondSet}`)
*/
Please let me know if you have any questions
In modern JavaScript apps we do not mutate arrays we create new array, this avoids side effects, so what we do is create two new arrays
const split = (source, conditionFunc) = [ source.filter(i => conditionFunc(i)), source.filter(i => !conditionFunc(i))];
Then you have an array of two arrays of the values that meed condition and those that don't and you have not caused any side effects.
const odssAndEvens = split(source, i => i % 2 === 1);
Or with reduce so you don't iterate the array twice
const split = (source, conditionFunc) = source.reduce((results, item) => {
if (conditionFunc(item)) {
results[0].push(item);
} else {
results[1].push(item);
}
return results;
}, [[],[]]);
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)
What's the simplest, library-free code for implementing array intersections in javascript? I want to write
intersection([1,2,3], [2,3,4,5])
and get
[2, 3]
Use a combination of Array.prototype.filter and Array.prototype.includes:
const filteredArray = array1.filter(value => array2.includes(value));
For older browsers, with Array.prototype.indexOf and without an arrow function:
var filteredArray = array1.filter(function(n) {
return array2.indexOf(n) !== -1;
});
NB! Both .includes and .indexOf internally compares elements in the array by using ===, so if the array contains objects it will only compare object references (not their content). If you want to specify your own comparison logic, use Array.prototype.some instead.
Destructive seems simplest, especially if we can assume the input is sorted:
/* destructively finds the intersection of
* two arrays in a simple fashion.
*
* PARAMS
* a - first array, must already be sorted
* b - second array, must already be sorted
*
* NOTES
* State of input arrays is undefined when
* the function returns. They should be
* (prolly) be dumped.
*
* Should have O(n) operations, where n is
* n = MIN(a.length, b.length)
*/
function intersection_destructive(a, b)
{
var result = [];
while( a.length > 0 && b.length > 0 )
{
if (a[0] < b[0] ){ a.shift(); }
else if (a[0] > b[0] ){ b.shift(); }
else /* they're equal */
{
result.push(a.shift());
b.shift();
}
}
return result;
}
Non-destructive has to be a hair more complicated, since we’ve got to track indices:
/* finds the intersection of
* two arrays in a simple fashion.
*
* PARAMS
* a - first array, must already be sorted
* b - second array, must already be sorted
*
* NOTES
*
* Should have O(n) operations, where n is
* n = MIN(a.length(), b.length())
*/
function intersect_safe(a, b)
{
var ai=0, bi=0;
var result = [];
while( ai < a.length && bi < b.length )
{
if (a[ai] < b[bi] ){ ai++; }
else if (a[ai] > b[bi] ){ bi++; }
else /* they're equal */
{
result.push(a[ai]);
ai++;
bi++;
}
}
return result;
}
If your environment supports ECMAScript 6 Set, one simple and supposedly efficient (see specification link) way:
function intersect(a, b) {
var setA = new Set(a);
var setB = new Set(b);
var intersection = new Set([...setA].filter(x => setB.has(x)));
return Array.from(intersection);
}
Shorter, but less readable (also without creating the additional intersection Set):
function intersect(a, b) {
var setB = new Set(b);
return [...new Set(a)].filter(x => setB.has(x));
}
Note that when using sets you will only get distinct values, thus new Set([1, 2, 3, 3]).size evaluates to 3.
Using Underscore.js or lodash.js
_.intersection( [0,345,324] , [1,0,324] ) // gives [0,324]
// Return elements of array a that are also in b in linear time:
function intersect(a, b) {
return a.filter(Set.prototype.has, new Set(b));
}
// Example:
console.log(intersect([1,2,3], [2,3,4,5]));
I recommend above succinct solution which outperforms other implementations on large inputs. If performance on small inputs matters, check the alternatives below.
Alternatives and performance comparison:
See the following snippet for alternative implementations and check https://jsperf.com/array-intersection-comparison for performance comparisons.
function intersect_for(a, b) {
const result = [];
const alen = a.length;
const blen = b.length;
for (let i = 0; i < alen; ++i) {
const ai = a[i];
for (let j = 0; j < blen; ++j) {
if (ai === b[j]) {
result.push(ai);
break;
}
}
}
return result;
}
function intersect_filter_indexOf(a, b) {
return a.filter(el => b.indexOf(el) !== -1);
}
function intersect_filter_in(a, b) {
const map = b.reduce((map, el) => {map[el] = true; return map}, {});
return a.filter(el => el in map);
}
function intersect_for_in(a, b) {
const result = [];
const map = {};
for (let i = 0, length = b.length; i < length; ++i) {
map[b[i]] = true;
}
for (let i = 0, length = a.length; i < length; ++i) {
if (a[i] in map) result.push(a[i]);
}
return result;
}
function intersect_filter_includes(a, b) {
return a.filter(el => b.includes(el));
}
function intersect_filter_has_this(a, b) {
return a.filter(Set.prototype.has, new Set(b));
}
function intersect_filter_has_arrow(a, b) {
const set = new Set(b);
return a.filter(el => set.has(el));
}
function intersect_for_has(a, b) {
const result = [];
const set = new Set(b);
for (let i = 0, length = a.length; i < length; ++i) {
if (set.has(a[i])) result.push(a[i]);
}
return result;
}
Results in Firefox 53:
Ops/sec on large arrays (10,000 elements):
filter + has (this) 523 (this answer)
for + has 482
for-loop + in 279
filter + in 242
for-loops 24
filter + includes 14
filter + indexOf 10
Ops/sec on small arrays (100 elements):
for-loop + in 384,426
filter + in 192,066
for-loops 159,137
filter + includes 104,068
filter + indexOf 71,598
filter + has (this) 43,531 (this answer)
filter + has (arrow function) 35,588
My contribution in ES6 terms. In general it finds the intersection of an array with indefinite number of arrays provided as arguments.
Array.prototype.intersect = function(...a) {
return [this,...a].reduce((p,c) => p.filter(e => c.includes(e)));
}
var arrs = [[0,2,4,6,8],[4,5,6,7],[4,6]],
arr = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9];
document.write("<pre>" + JSON.stringify(arr.intersect(...arrs)) + "</pre>");
How about just using associative arrays?
function intersect(a, b) {
var d1 = {};
var d2 = {};
var results = [];
for (var i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
d1[a[i]] = true;
}
for (var j = 0; j < b.length; j++) {
d2[b[j]] = true;
}
for (var k in d1) {
if (d2[k])
results.push(k);
}
return results;
}
edit:
// new version
function intersect(a, b) {
var d = {};
var results = [];
for (var i = 0; i < b.length; i++) {
d[b[i]] = true;
}
for (var j = 0; j < a.length; j++) {
if (d[a[j]])
results.push(a[j]);
}
return results;
}
The performance of #atk's implementation for sorted arrays of primitives can be improved by using .pop rather than .shift.
function intersect(array1, array2) {
var result = [];
// Don't destroy the original arrays
var a = array1.slice(0);
var b = array2.slice(0);
var aLast = a.length - 1;
var bLast = b.length - 1;
while (aLast >= 0 && bLast >= 0) {
if (a[aLast] > b[bLast] ) {
a.pop();
aLast--;
} else if (a[aLast] < b[bLast] ){
b.pop();
bLast--;
} else /* they're equal */ {
result.push(a.pop());
b.pop();
aLast--;
bLast--;
}
}
return result;
}
I created a benchmark using jsPerf. It's about three times faster to use .pop.
If you need to have it handle intersecting multiple arrays:
const intersect = (a1, a2, ...rest) => {
const a12 = a1.filter(value => a2.includes(value))
if (rest.length === 0) { return a12; }
return intersect(a12, ...rest);
};
console.log(intersect([1,2,3,4,5], [1,2], [1, 2, 3,4,5], [2, 10, 1]))
Sort it
check one by one from the index 0, create new array from that.
Something like this, Not tested well though.
function intersection(x,y){
x.sort();y.sort();
var i=j=0;ret=[];
while(i<x.length && j<y.length){
if(x[i]<y[j])i++;
else if(y[j]<x[i])j++;
else {
ret.push(x[i]);
i++,j++;
}
}
return ret;
}
alert(intersection([1,2,3], [2,3,4,5]));
PS:The algorithm only intended for Numbers and Normal Strings, intersection of arbitary object arrays may not work.
Using jQuery:
var a = [1,2,3];
var b = [2,3,4,5];
var c = $(b).not($(b).not(a));
alert(c);
A tiny tweak to the smallest one here (the filter/indexOf solution), namely creating an index of the values in one of the arrays using a JavaScript object, will reduce it from O(N*M) to "probably" linear time. source1 source2
function intersect(a, b) {
var aa = {};
a.forEach(function(v) { aa[v]=1; });
return b.filter(function(v) { return v in aa; });
}
This isn't the very simplest solution (it's more code than filter+indexOf), nor is it the very fastest (probably slower by a constant factor than intersect_safe()), but seems like a pretty good balance. It is on the very simple side, while providing good performance, and it doesn't require pre-sorted inputs.
For arrays containing only strings or numbers you can do something with sorting, as per some of the other answers. For the general case of arrays of arbitrary objects I don't think you can avoid doing it the long way. The following will give you the intersection of any number of arrays provided as parameters to arrayIntersection:
var arrayContains = Array.prototype.indexOf ?
function(arr, val) {
return arr.indexOf(val) > -1;
} :
function(arr, val) {
var i = arr.length;
while (i--) {
if (arr[i] === val) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
};
function arrayIntersection() {
var val, arrayCount, firstArray, i, j, intersection = [], missing;
var arrays = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments); // Convert arguments into a real array
// Search for common values
firstArray = arrays.pop();
if (firstArray) {
j = firstArray.length;
arrayCount = arrays.length;
while (j--) {
val = firstArray[j];
missing = false;
// Check val is present in each remaining array
i = arrayCount;
while (!missing && i--) {
if ( !arrayContains(arrays[i], val) ) {
missing = true;
}
}
if (!missing) {
intersection.push(val);
}
}
}
return intersection;
}
arrayIntersection( [1, 2, 3, "a"], [1, "a", 2], ["a", 1] ); // Gives [1, "a"];
Simplest, fastest O(n) and shortest way:
function intersection (a, b) {
const setA = new Set(a);
return b.filter(value => setA.has(value));
}
console.log(intersection([1,2,3], [2,3,4,5]))
#nbarbosa has almost the same answer but he cast both arrays to Set and then back to array. There is no need for any extra casting.
Another indexed approach able to process any number of arrays at once:
// Calculate intersection of multiple array or object values.
function intersect (arrList) {
var arrLength = Object.keys(arrList).length;
// (Also accepts regular objects as input)
var index = {};
for (var i in arrList) {
for (var j in arrList[i]) {
var v = arrList[i][j];
if (index[v] === undefined) index[v] = 0;
index[v]++;
};
};
var retv = [];
for (var i in index) {
if (index[i] == arrLength) retv.push(i);
};
return retv;
};
It works only for values that can be evaluated as strings and you should pass them as an array like:
intersect ([arr1, arr2, arr3...]);
...but it transparently accepts objects as parameter or as any of the elements to be intersected (always returning array of common values). Examples:
intersect ({foo: [1, 2, 3, 4], bar: {a: 2, j:4}}); // [2, 4]
intersect ([{x: "hello", y: "world"}, ["hello", "user"]]); // ["hello"]
EDIT: I just noticed that this is, in a way, slightly buggy.
That is: I coded it thinking that input arrays cannot itself contain repetitions (as provided example doesn't).
But if input arrays happen to contain repetitions, that would produce wrong results. Example (using below implementation):
intersect ([[1, 3, 4, 6, 3], [1, 8, 99]]);
// Expected: [ '1' ]
// Actual: [ '1', '3' ]
Fortunately this is easy to fix by simply adding second level indexing. That is:
Change:
if (index[v] === undefined) index[v] = 0;
index[v]++;
by:
if (index[v] === undefined) index[v] = {};
index[v][i] = true; // Mark as present in i input.
...and:
if (index[i] == arrLength) retv.push(i);
by:
if (Object.keys(index[i]).length == arrLength) retv.push(i);
Complete example:
// Calculate intersection of multiple array or object values.
function intersect (arrList) {
var arrLength = Object.keys(arrList).length;
// (Also accepts regular objects as input)
var index = {};
for (var i in arrList) {
for (var j in arrList[i]) {
var v = arrList[i][j];
if (index[v] === undefined) index[v] = {};
index[v][i] = true; // Mark as present in i input.
};
};
var retv = [];
for (var i in index) {
if (Object.keys(index[i]).length == arrLength) retv.push(i);
};
return retv;
};
intersect ([[1, 3, 4, 6, 3], [1, 8, 99]]); // [ '1' ]
With some restrictions on your data, you can do it in linear time!
For positive integers: use an array mapping the values to a "seen/not seen" boolean.
function intersectIntegers(array1,array2) {
var seen=[],
result=[];
for (var i = 0; i < array1.length; i++) {
seen[array1[i]] = true;
}
for (var i = 0; i < array2.length; i++) {
if ( seen[array2[i]])
result.push(array2[i]);
}
return result;
}
There is a similar technique for objects: take a dummy key, set it to "true" for each element in array1, then look for this key in elements of array2. Clean up when you're done.
function intersectObjects(array1,array2) {
var result=[];
var key="tmpKey_intersect"
for (var i = 0; i < array1.length; i++) {
array1[i][key] = true;
}
for (var i = 0; i < array2.length; i++) {
if (array2[i][key])
result.push(array2[i]);
}
for (var i = 0; i < array1.length; i++) {
delete array1[i][key];
}
return result;
}
Of course you need to be sure the key didn't appear before, otherwise you'll be destroying your data...
function intersection(A,B){
var result = new Array();
for (i=0; i<A.length; i++) {
for (j=0; j<B.length; j++) {
if (A[i] == B[j] && $.inArray(A[i],result) == -1) {
result.push(A[i]);
}
}
}
return result;
}
For simplicity:
// Usage
const intersection = allLists
.reduce(intersect, allValues)
.reduce(removeDuplicates, []);
// Implementation
const intersect = (intersection, list) =>
intersection.filter(item =>
list.some(x => x === item));
const removeDuplicates = (uniques, item) =>
uniques.includes(item) ? uniques : uniques.concat(item);
// Example Data
const somePeople = [bob, doug, jill];
const otherPeople = [sarah, bob, jill];
const morePeople = [jack, jill];
const allPeople = [...somePeople, ...otherPeople, ...morePeople];
const allGroups = [somePeople, otherPeople, morePeople];
// Example Usage
const intersection = allGroups
.reduce(intersect, allPeople)
.reduce(removeDuplicates, []);
intersection; // [jill]
Benefits:
dirt simple
data-centric
works for arbitrary number of lists
works for arbitrary lengths of lists
works for arbitrary types of values
works for arbitrary sort order
retains shape (order of first appearance in any array)
exits early where possible
memory safe, short of tampering with Function / Array prototypes
Drawbacks:
higher memory usage
higher CPU usage
requires an understanding of reduce
requires understanding of data flow
You wouldn't want to use this for 3D engine or kernel work, but if you have problems getting this to run in an event-based app, your design has bigger problems.
I'll contribute with what has been working out best for me:
if (!Array.prototype.intersect){
Array.prototype.intersect = function (arr1) {
var r = [], o = {}, l = this.length, i, v;
for (i = 0; i < l; i++) {
o[this[i]] = true;
}
l = arr1.length;
for (i = 0; i < l; i++) {
v = arr1[i];
if (v in o) {
r.push(v);
}
}
return r;
};
}
A functional approach with ES2015
A functional approach must consider using only pure functions without side effects, each of which is only concerned with a single job.
These restrictions enhance the composability and reusability of the functions involved.
// small, reusable auxiliary functions
const createSet = xs => new Set(xs);
const filter = f => xs => xs.filter(apply(f));
const apply = f => x => f(x);
// intersection
const intersect = xs => ys => {
const zs = createSet(ys);
return filter(x => zs.has(x)
? true
: false
) (xs);
};
// mock data
const xs = [1,2,2,3,4,5];
const ys = [0,1,2,3,3,3,6,7,8,9];
// run it
console.log( intersect(xs) (ys) );
Please note that the native Set type is used, which has an advantageous
lookup performance.
Avoid duplicates
Obviously repeatedly occurring items from the first Array are preserved, while the second Array is de-duplicated. This may be or may be not the desired behavior. If you need a unique result just apply dedupe to the first argument:
// auxiliary functions
const apply = f => x => f(x);
const comp = f => g => x => f(g(x));
const afrom = apply(Array.from);
const createSet = xs => new Set(xs);
const filter = f => xs => xs.filter(apply(f));
// intersection
const intersect = xs => ys => {
const zs = createSet(ys);
return filter(x => zs.has(x)
? true
: false
) (xs);
};
// de-duplication
const dedupe = comp(afrom) (createSet);
// mock data
const xs = [1,2,2,3,4,5];
const ys = [0,1,2,3,3,3,6,7,8,9];
// unique result
console.log( intersect(dedupe(xs)) (ys) );
Compute the intersection of any number of Arrays
If you want to compute the intersection of an arbitrarily number of Arrays just compose intersect with foldl. Here is a convenience function:
// auxiliary functions
const apply = f => x => f(x);
const uncurry = f => (x, y) => f(x) (y);
const createSet = xs => new Set(xs);
const filter = f => xs => xs.filter(apply(f));
const foldl = f => acc => xs => xs.reduce(uncurry(f), acc);
// intersection
const intersect = xs => ys => {
const zs = createSet(ys);
return filter(x => zs.has(x)
? true
: false
) (xs);
};
// intersection of an arbitrarily number of Arrays
const intersectn = (head, ...tail) => foldl(intersect) (head) (tail);
// mock data
const xs = [1,2,2,3,4,5];
const ys = [0,1,2,3,3,3,6,7,8,9];
const zs = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6];
// run
console.log( intersectn(xs, ys, zs) );
.reduce to build a map, and .filter to find the intersection. delete within the .filter allows us to treat the second array as though it's a unique set.
function intersection (a, b) {
var seen = a.reduce(function (h, k) {
h[k] = true;
return h;
}, {});
return b.filter(function (k) {
var exists = seen[k];
delete seen[k];
return exists;
});
}
I find this approach pretty easy to reason about. It performs in constant time.
I have written an intesection function which can even detect intersection of array of objects based on particular property of those objects.
For instance,
if arr1 = [{id: 10}, {id: 20}]
and arr2 = [{id: 20}, {id: 25}]
and we want intersection based on the id property, then the output should be :
[{id: 20}]
As such, the function for the same (note: ES6 code) is :
const intersect = (arr1, arr2, accessors = [v => v, v => v]) => {
const [fn1, fn2] = accessors;
const set = new Set(arr2.map(v => fn2(v)));
return arr1.filter(value => set.has(fn1(value)));
};
and you can call the function as:
intersect(arr1, arr2, [elem => elem.id, elem => elem.id])
Also note: this function finds intersection considering the first array is the primary array and thus the intersection result will be that of the primary array.
This function avoids the N^2 problem, taking advantage of the power of dictionaries. Loops through each array only once, and a third and shorter loop to return the final result.
It also supports numbers, strings, and objects.
function array_intersect(array1, array2)
{
var mergedElems = {},
result = [];
// Returns a unique reference string for the type and value of the element
function generateStrKey(elem) {
var typeOfElem = typeof elem;
if (typeOfElem === 'object') {
typeOfElem += Object.prototype.toString.call(elem);
}
return [typeOfElem, elem.toString(), JSON.stringify(elem)].join('__');
}
array1.forEach(function(elem) {
var key = generateStrKey(elem);
if (!(key in mergedElems)) {
mergedElems[key] = {elem: elem, inArray2: false};
}
});
array2.forEach(function(elem) {
var key = generateStrKey(elem);
if (key in mergedElems) {
mergedElems[key].inArray2 = true;
}
});
Object.values(mergedElems).forEach(function(elem) {
if (elem.inArray2) {
result.push(elem.elem);
}
});
return result;
}
If there is a special case that cannot be solved, just by modifying the generateStrKey function, it could surely be solved. The trick of this function is that it uniquely represents each different data according to type and value.
This variant has some performance improvements. Avoid loops in case any array is empty. It also starts by walking through the shorter array first, so if it finds all the values of the first array in the second array, exits the loop.
function array_intersect(array1, array2)
{
var mergedElems = {},
result = [],
firstArray, secondArray,
firstN = 0,
secondN = 0;
function generateStrKey(elem) {
var typeOfElem = typeof elem;
if (typeOfElem === 'object') {
typeOfElem += Object.prototype.toString.call(elem);
}
return [typeOfElem, elem.toString(), JSON.stringify(elem)].join('__');
}
// Executes the loops only if both arrays have values
if (array1.length && array2.length)
{
// Begins with the shortest array to optimize the algorithm
if (array1.length < array2.length) {
firstArray = array1;
secondArray = array2;
} else {
firstArray = array2;
secondArray = array1;
}
firstArray.forEach(function(elem) {
var key = generateStrKey(elem);
if (!(key in mergedElems)) {
mergedElems[key] = {elem: elem, inArray2: false};
// Increases the counter of unique values in the first array
firstN++;
}
});
secondArray.some(function(elem) {
var key = generateStrKey(elem);
if (key in mergedElems) {
if (!mergedElems[key].inArray2) {
mergedElems[key].inArray2 = true;
// Increases the counter of matches
secondN++;
// If all elements of first array have coincidence, then exits the loop
return (secondN === firstN);
}
}
});
Object.values(mergedElems).forEach(function(elem) {
if (elem.inArray2) {
result.push(elem.elem);
}
});
}
return result;
}
Here is underscore.js implementation:
_.intersection = function(array) {
if (array == null) return [];
var result = [];
var argsLength = arguments.length;
for (var i = 0, length = array.length; i < length; i++) {
var item = array[i];
if (_.contains(result, item)) continue;
for (var j = 1; j < argsLength; j++) {
if (!_.contains(arguments[j], item)) break;
}
if (j === argsLength) result.push(item);
}
return result;
};
Source: http://underscorejs.org/docs/underscore.html#section-62
Create an Object using one array and loop through the second array to check if the value exists as key.
function intersection(arr1, arr2) {
var myObj = {};
var myArr = [];
for (var i = 0, len = arr1.length; i < len; i += 1) {
if(myObj[arr1[i]]) {
myObj[arr1[i]] += 1;
} else {
myObj[arr1[i]] = 1;
}
}
for (var j = 0, len = arr2.length; j < len; j += 1) {
if(myObj[arr2[j]] && myArr.indexOf(arr2[j]) === -1) {
myArr.push(arr2[j]);
}
}
return myArr;
}
I think using an object internally can help with computations and could be performant too.
// Approach maintains a count of each element and works for negative elements too
function intersect(a,b){
const A = {};
a.forEach((v)=>{A[v] ? ++A[v] : A[v] = 1});
const B = {};
b.forEach((v)=>{B[v] ? ++B[v] : B[v] = 1});
const C = {};
Object.entries(A).map((x)=>C[x[0]] = Math.min(x[1],B[x[0]]))
return Object.entries(C).map((x)=>Array(x[1]).fill(Number(x[0]))).flat();
}
const x = [1,1,-1,-1,0,0,2,2];
const y = [2,0,1,1,1,1,0,-1,-1,-1];
const result = intersect(x,y);
console.log(result); // (7) [0, 0, 1, 1, 2, -1, -1]
I am using map even object could be used.
//find intersection of 2 arrs
const intersections = (arr1,arr2) => {
let arrf = arr1.concat(arr2)
let map = new Map();
let union = [];
for(let i=0; i<arrf.length; i++){
if(map.get(arrf[i])){
map.set(arrf[i],false);
}else{
map.set(arrf[i],true);
}
}
map.forEach((v,k)=>{if(!v){union.push(k);}})
return union;
}
This is a proposed standard: With the currently stage 2 proposal https://github.com/tc39/proposal-set-methods, you could use
mySet.intersection(mySet2);
Until then, you could use Immutable.js's Set, which inspired that proposal
Immutable.Set(mySet).intersect(mySet2)
I extended tarulen's answer to work with any number of arrays. It also should work with non-integer values.
function intersect() {
const last = arguments.length - 1;
var seen={};
var result=[];
for (var i = 0; i < last; i++) {
for (var j = 0; j < arguments[i].length; j++) {
if (seen[arguments[i][j]]) {
seen[arguments[i][j]] += 1;
}
else if (!i) {
seen[arguments[i][j]] = 1;
}
}
}
for (var i = 0; i < arguments[last].length; i++) {
if ( seen[arguments[last][i]] === last)
result.push(arguments[last][i]);
}
return result;
}
If your arrays are sorted, this should run in O(n), where n is min( a.length, b.length )
function intersect_1d( a, b ){
var out=[], ai=0, bi=0, acurr, bcurr, last=Number.MIN_SAFE_INTEGER;
while( ( acurr=a[ai] )!==undefined && ( bcurr=b[bi] )!==undefined ){
if( acurr < bcurr){
if( last===acurr ){
out.push( acurr );
}
last=acurr;
ai++;
}
else if( acurr > bcurr){
if( last===bcurr ){
out.push( bcurr );
}
last=bcurr;
bi++;
}
else {
out.push( acurr );
last=acurr;
ai++;
bi++;
}
}
return out;
}
This question already has answers here:
Split array into chunks
(73 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
Please consider an array such as :
arrayAll = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
Is there a package that enable to do partitioning to obtain :
arrayALLPartionned = [[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8,9]]
I can see how to do this with a for loop but would appreciate a "pre-made" function if existing.
I think you will have to use a for loop, don't know of any inbuilt functions...
Try this function:
function splitarray(input, spacing)
{
var output = [];
for (var i = 0; i < input.length; i += spacing)
{
output[output.length] = input.slice(i, i + spacing);
}
return output;
}
Here's a recursive solution:
function partition(array, n) {
return array.length ? [array.splice(0, n)].concat(partition(array, n)) : [];
}
This takes advantage of the fact that Array#splice destructively remove the specified items, and returns them as the function value. Note that this will destroy the input array, leaving it empty.
If using Underscore.js, you can implement this with groupBy() and values()
function partition(items, size) {
var result = _.groupBy(items, function(item, i) {
return Math.floor(i/size);
});
return _.values(result);
}
(This is less ugly in CoffeeScript.)
jsFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/MW3BS/
I've added this solution to #dystroy's jspref here and it appears to run twice as fast as the other solutions. Edit: in Safari & Chrome but not Firefox
Here is functional style solution to add to the mix of answers here.
It is a higher order function called toPartitions which returns a callback for underscore's reduce method or the native array reduce method.
Example usage:
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9].reduce( toPartitions( 3 ), [] );
The function:
function toPartitions ( size ) {
var partition = [];
return function ( acc, v ) {
partition.push( v );
if ( partition.length === size ) {
acc.push( partition );
partition = [];
}
return acc;
};
}
Like Clojure's partition it will not include a tail partition when there are not enough elements.
In your example you could do:
arrayALLPartionned = arrayAll.reduce( toPartitions( 3 ), [] ) );
If you don't want to use this with reduce, but just have a function which takes an array and partition size you could do:
function partition ( arr, size ) {
return arr.reduce( toPartitions( size ), [] );
}
Therefore the solution would just be:
arrayALLPartionned = partition( arrayAll, 3 );
One more solution, with no external library :
function partition(items, size) {
var p = [];
for (var i=Math.floor(items.length/size); i-->0; ) {
p[i]=items.slice(i*size, (i+1)*size);
}
return p;
}
Demonstration : http://jsfiddle.net/dystroy/xtHXZ/
Prototype has an array.partition function as well as an eachSlice() function. Sounds like eachSlice() is what you're looking for. If you're using jquery, there's a plug in to be able to use prototype functions. Here's a link to it... http://www.learningjquery.com/2009/02/implementing-prototypes-array-methods-in-jquery
You can write your own prototype method to do this
Array.prototype.partition = function(length) {
var result = [];
for(var i = 0; i < this.length; i++) {
if(i % length === 0) result.push([]);
result[result.length - 1].push(this[i]);
}
return result;
};
If you prefer not to add to the native prototype, you can write a simple function:
var partition = function(arr, length) {
var result = [];
for(var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
if(i % length === 0) result.push([]);
result[result.length - 1].push(arr[i]);
}
return result;
};
You can see it in action on this jsFiddle demo.