1595

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?

Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
Vijjendra
  • 20,365
  • 9
  • 54
  • 86
  • 11
    Before you post a new answer, consider there are already 75+ answers for this question. Please, make sure that your answer contributes information that is not among existing answers. – janniks Feb 03 '20 at 12:05
  • [...new Set([...[1, 2, 3], ...[2, 3, 4]])] result [1, 2, 3, 4] – Denis Giffeler Mar 30 '20 at 07:24
  • If you want a more generic solution that also covers deep-merging, take a look [at this question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27936772/how-to-deep-merge-instead-of-shallow-merge), instead. Some answers cover arrays as well. – Martin Braun May 06 '20 at 13:06

80 Answers80

1928

To just merge the arrays (without removing duplicates)

ES5 version use Array.concat:

var array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];

console.log(array1.concat(array2));

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;
    }
});
meager
  • 209,754
  • 38
  • 307
  • 315
LiraNuna
  • 57,153
  • 14
  • 112
  • 136
  • 323
    Note that this algorithm is O(n^2). – Gumbo Oct 18 '09 at 08:54
  • 7
    Let `[a, b, c]` and `[x, b, d]` be the arrays (assume quotes). concat gives `[a, b, c, x, b, d]`. Wouldn't the unique()'s output be `[a, c, x, b, d]`. That doesn't preserve the order I think - I believe OP wants `[a, b, c, x, d]` – Amarghosh Oct 18 '09 at 09:04
  • 101
    OP accepted the first answer that got him working and signed off it seems. We are still comparing each others' solutions, finding-n-fixing faults, improving performance, making sure its compatible everywhere and so on... The beauty of stackoverflow :-) – Amarghosh Oct 18 '09 at 11:10
  • But I think it's worth it. I learned that w3schools is not the best reference out there, that `indexOf` is in fact present in js and how to add it for older browsers, and a new use for the `in` keyword (`from in this` part in the MDC version of indexOf, I didn't know that). – Amarghosh Oct 18 '09 at 11:16
  • 7
    I originally up-voted this but have changed my mind. Assigning prototypes to Array.prototype has the consequences of breaking "for ... in" statements. So the best solution is probably to use a function like this but not assign it as a prototype. Some people may argue that "for ... in" statements shouldn't be used to iterate array elements anyway, but people often use them that way so at the very least this solution be used with caution. – Code Commander Feb 02 '11 at 00:49
  • @CodeCommander "but people often use them that way" - novice or bad programmers use it that way, that's why you have conventions. I used `for in` in arrays before, but I'd never do that again. Even some frameworks augment prototypes, so you shouldn't really care for breaking `for in` in arrays (and especially, you should never use it yourself!). – Camilo Martin Dec 14 '12 at 06:52
  • 16
    you should always use `for ... in` with `hasOwnProperty` in which case the prototype method is fine – mulllhausen Jan 01 '13 at 12:17
  • just to note that the arrayUnique function doesn't really work for arrays which has more than two identical values ... – Jan Zyka Jan 30 '13 at 07:18
  • Does this work with classes in the array? e.g. `questions: [Class, Class]` after concat gives me `[]` – Tjorriemorrie Jul 01 '13 at 13:42
  • You can do the "unique" bit in O(n) using something like `var b=[]; for (var i=0,n=a.length;i – diego nunes Sep 08 '13 at 00:57
  • @DiegoNunes: your solution is still O(n^2) because removing an item from the array is O(n). Besides, table lookup is probably O(log n) so even fixing that won't make it linear. – riv Jun 21 '14 at 15:04
  • 2
    Just use Babel and `Set()` as described in another answer. – cmcculloh May 04 '16 at 20:32
  • @LiraNuna I would replace the O(n^2) solution for the duplicate removal with the filter function. It should accept two parameters: the element and the index. – Stelios Voskos Dec 02 '16 at 12:25
  • Stelios -- that is still O(n^2) -- you are just hiding the outer loop in a system function. You need to go merge or hash or binary search – Gerard ONeill Apr 13 '17 at 21:11
  • For other methods to dedup an array, please see my benchmarks at: https://jsperf.com/de-duplicate-an-array-keeping-only-unique-values – Amr Ali Oct 06 '17 at 14:42
  • @AmrAli, your link is 404. https://jsperf.com/merge-two-arrays-keeping-only-unique-values by slickplaid works and shows this is the worst performing answer. – Turbo Jan 04 '19 at 22:53
  • O(n^2) can be faster if the arrays are small because creating a `Set` object has some constant factor overhead due to allocation and GC. But this answer makes no mention that the algorithm is not scalable beyond small arrays. Even if you do need an O(n^2) algorithm, using [`filter` and `indexOf`](https://stackoverflow.com/a/23080662/6243352) is more idiomatic and clean. The likely reason this answer is so highly upvoted is because it came on the stage first and got accepted back in 2009, but in nearly every respect it's a poor solution. – ggorlen Jul 06 '20 at 17:14
  • Just to add on top of original answer using ES6 filter/include, ignoring all big o comments: `const array3 = [...array1, ...(array2.filter(v => !array1.includes(v)))];` – YNG Sep 04 '20 at 10:06
  • I don't like `for`. So I will prefer: `simo's` answer. – Jannis Ioannou Feb 07 '21 at 00:38
  • Please understand that this answer was written over 11 years ago, when things like `forEach` and other nice things we're used to today did not exist. – LiraNuna Feb 12 '21 at 19:28
626

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

dota2pro
  • 5,432
  • 5
  • 25
  • 52
GijsjanB
  • 9,396
  • 4
  • 21
  • 26
  • a set would by definition not preserve the order of a merged array because it does not have any order? – Ygg Jan 25 '13 at 13:15
  • 74
    Or, perhaps even better than underscore, the API-compatible [lodash](http://lodash.com/). – Brian M. Hunt Feb 09 '13 at 15:02
  • 3
    @Ygg From the lodash docs. "Returns a new array of unique values, **in order**, that are present in one or more of the arrays." – Richard Ayotte Aug 02 '13 at 00:42
  • 4
    I prefer underscore.js. What I ended up using is `underscore.flatten()`, which is better than union in that it takes an array of arrays. – weaver Feb 18 '14 at 23:25
  • 9
    @weaver _.flatten merges, but does not 'de-duplicate'. – GijsjanB Mar 25 '14 at 11:06
  • 9
    Quick performance take on lodash vs the top answer: http://jsperf.com/merge-two-arrays-keeping-only-unique-values – slickplaid Aug 04 '14 at 14:08
  • @weaver if you want to pass an array you could just use .apply() – Johan Olsson Oct 24 '14 at 16:37
  • Uncaught ReferenceError: _ is not defined I don't want to use any libraries, there is other, easiest way, for example: array.concact(otherArrays); - this is also one line and lot faster. – barwnikk Apr 22 '15 at 21:04
  • 1
    @TimoHuovinen I added [...new Set(array1.concat(array2))] to slickplaid's jsperf and it is the same speed as lodash which is slow compared to alternatives. Still better than the top answer. (I've never needed to down vote a top answer before.) – Turbo Jan 04 '19 at 22:51
344

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]
simo
  • 12,796
  • 7
  • 40
  • 54
  • 7
    The original solution here has the benefit of removing dupes within each source array. I guess it depends on your context which you would use. – theGecko Sep 26 '15 at 21:17
  • You could merge different for IE6-support: c = Array.from(new Set(c)); – Tobi G. Oct 18 '16 at 22:37
  • If I want to actually change `a` to add `b`, will it then be better to loop through and use push? `a.forEach(function(item){ if(a.indexOf(item)<0) a.push(item); });` – awe Nov 10 '16 at 10:49
  • 1
    Just a reminder of the current browser usage http://caniuse.com/usage-table for people anxious about IE6. – pmrotule Nov 21 '16 at 09:55
  • 18
    @Andrew: Even better: **1.** `var c = [...a, ...b.filter(o => !~a.indexOf(o))];` **2.** `var c = [...new Set([...a, ...b])];` ☺ – 7vujy0f0hy Apr 08 '17 at 17:49
  • @7vujy0f0hy If more obscure and shorter is better then maybe? – Andrew Jun 09 '17 at 17:55
  • @Andrew I suspect that the 2nd approach mentioned will become widely used since if it's understood what Sets are, it is actually pretty readable and not too "clever". The 1st method takes a bit of reading. – jinglesthula Mar 20 '18 at 17:14
  • Can we use it in associative array? `let a = [{id: 1, name:"sam", id:2, name: "roy" }]; let b = [{id: 1, name:"sam", id:3, name: "john" }]` Output should be `[{id: 1, name:"sam", id:2, name: "roy" , id:3, name: "john"}]` – AbhimanuSharma Dec 23 '20 at 13:25
253

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));
dota2pro
  • 5,432
  • 5
  • 25
  • 52
Adria
  • 7,508
  • 4
  • 34
  • 25
  • 16
    This should be added to the accepted answer. This solution is much more efficient and much more elegant than what's currently possible but it's what we'll inevitably be able to do (and should do to keep up in this field). – heckascript Jan 21 '15 at 23:08
  • This isn't quiiite the same as the OP's question (this seems to be more of a flatmap than anything) but upvote because it's awesome. – jedd.ahyoung Feb 12 '16 at 16:48
  • @jedd.ahyoung: make it `mergeDedupe(...arr)` and you can call it like `mergeDedupe(array1, array2)` which is exactly what the OP wants. – Bergi Feb 19 '16 at 14:52
  • Um, the `Array` constructor has no static `concat` method? (Proprietary FF ignored). You should make that `[].concat(...arr)`. – Bergi Feb 19 '16 at 14:54
  • Babel only converts syntax. You need a transform for `Set` to fully work in IE10 and Safari, which can be messy – MusikAnimal May 18 '16 at 22:49
  • 4
    Hard to say that this should be the accepted answer since the question is from 2009. But yes, this not only is more "performant" but also "elegant" – Cezar Augusto Sep 21 '16 at 19:43
  • 15
    `Array.from` can be used instead of spread operator: `Array.from(new Set([].concat(...arr)))` – Henry Blyth Feb 16 '17 at 12:08
  • @Bergi: `var mergeDeduplicate = (...arrayOfArrays) => [...new Set([].concat(...arrayOfArrays))];` – 7vujy0f0hy Apr 08 '17 at 18:01
  • @7vujy0f0hy Is that a question? – Bergi Apr 08 '17 at 18:11
  • @Bergi: No, an answer ☺. You said “make it”, so I made it... and improved even more. – 7vujy0f0hy Apr 08 '17 at 20:37
  • The current accepted answer refers to ES6 without this elegant answer, it should be revised to include it – bArmageddon May 03 '18 at 15:35
  • @HenryBlyth So what do you think `...arr` is? What's the point in using `Array.from` instead of the spread operator if you're still using `...arr` inside? – connexo Aug 10 '18 at 14:38
  • 1
    This is very elegant. Unfortunately Typescript doesn't support this yet. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33464504/using-spread-syntax-and-new-set-with-typescript/33464709 – Ben Carp Apr 21 '19 at 17:26
  • why not just `return [...new Set(arr)];` rather than `return [...new Set([].concat(...arr))];`? Not saying it is wrong just wondering why you have to do this – user210757 Jun 20 '19 at 17:24
247
[...array1,...array2] //   =>  don't remove duplication 

OR

[...new Set([...array1 ,...array2])]; //   => remove duplication
Roman Nazarevych
  • 6,184
  • 2
  • 54
  • 62
Abdennour TOUMI
  • 64,884
  • 28
  • 201
  • 207
  • 1
    1st/2nd example is no `union` at all + 1st example blows up the stack for large `Array`s + 3rd example is incredibly slow and consumes a lot of memory, since two intermediate `Array`s have to be build + 3rd example can only be used for `union` with a known number of `Array`s at compile time. –  Oct 10 '16 at 10:13
  • so how you would do it ? – David Noreña Oct 19 '16 at 14:45
  • 19
    `Set` is the way to go here – philk Nov 24 '16 at 13:23
  • 3
    Note that for set can't deduplicate two objects that have the same key value pairs unless they are the same object references. – Jun711 Jan 05 '18 at 02:16
  • should be accepted answer for the modern of Javascript. – Thanh Nguyen Mar 14 '18 at 09:21
  • 3
    Does not work with an array of objects, as it'll only merge object references and doesn't care if the objects themselves are equal. – Wilson Biggs Mar 07 '19 at 19:12
  • this is really the best answer, I tried to compare with array.find by id, array concact and wasnt fast like yours solution, best man thank you – x-magix Sep 16 '19 at 10:55
  • for merging different objects without duplicating : https://stackoverflow.com/a/54134237/3131433 – Rakibul Haq Nov 14 '19 at 01:32
  • `array1.push(...array2) // => don't remove duplication` it doest concatenate arrays but add new array as last element of `array1` – Roman Nazarevych May 26 '21 at 11:07
115

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))));
dota2pro
  • 5,432
  • 5
  • 25
  • 52
Benny Neugebauer
  • 40,817
  • 21
  • 196
  • 177
40

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.
Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy
  • 63,064
  • 13
  • 90
  • 119
39

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).

http://jsperf.com/merge-two-arrays-keeping-only-unique-values

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.

http://jsperf.com/merge-two-arrays-keeping-only-unique-values/52

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.

Brak
  • 179
  • 1
  • 9
slickplaid
  • 1,301
  • 1
  • 16
  • 20
  • There's a flaw in your methodology: you put the creation of array3 into the setup phase, while that cost should only be part of your while-based solution's score. [With this 1 line moved](http://jsperf.com/merge-two-arrays-keeping-only-unique-values/18), your solution falls to the speed of the for loop based one. I understand that array can be reused, but maybe the other algorithms could benefit too from not having to declare and initialize every necessary building block. – doldt Apr 14 '15 at 14:19
  • I agree with your premise @doldt, but disagree with your results. There is a fundamental design flaw with the loop based removal of entries, in that you have to recheck the length of the array after you have removed items, resulting in a slower execution time. A while loop working backwards does not have these effects. Here is an example with removing as many setup variables as I can without changing their original answer too much: http://jsperf.com/merge-two-arrays-keeping-only-unique-values/19 – slickplaid Apr 15 '15 at 20:55
  • @slickplaid the linked tests are empty, and the next revision at jsperf hangs in the while loop. – doldt Apr 16 '15 at 06:58
  • @doldt I've addressed your concerns in my answer and added a proper updated test to it as well. Let me know if you agree with those results or not. Also, I added another better result using an associative array. – slickplaid Apr 16 '15 at 16:42
  • @slickpaid Thanks, good job on the extended perf page, very comprehensive! – doldt Apr 17 '15 at 07:14
  • 1
    @slickplaid Thanks for setting up the extended perf page. Unless I'm missing something, the "whileLoopAlt2" function doesn't work? It creates a new array containing the first array, and the second array (in reverse order). To avoid confusion I've made another revision that removes the broken function. I also added an additional example: http://jsperf.com/merge-two-arrays-keeping-only-unique-values/22 – Stephen S Jun 05 '15 at 00:24
  • whileLoopAlt function does not removes all duplicates. – egiray Jun 08 '18 at 23:39
  • I took the liberty of updating the comprehensive jsperf page. I fixed whileLoopAlt2 by adding an initial population of the comparison hash, so now whileLoopAlt2 produces an array with only unique results; it's still pretty fast. Added new test differentiated by an undefined check rather than a falsy, for a faster whileLoopAlt3. And added an even faster(fastest) whileLoopAlt4 which uses null assignments rather than Booleans to save a tiny bit of speed. – Brak Jan 17 '19 at 19:31
31

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;
    }));
}
Andrew
  • 13,934
  • 8
  • 78
  • 93
24

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);
kabirbaidhya
  • 2,581
  • 2
  • 29
  • 51
Dan Stocker
  • 632
  • 6
  • 5
  • 2
    That's pretty amazing, especially if you're doing strings. Numbers would need an additional step to keep them as such. This function heftily beats out all other options if you don't mind (or care) that everything is a string after you're finished. Nice job. Performance results here: http://jsperf.com/merge-two-arrays-keeping-only-unique-values/21 – slickplaid Apr 16 '15 at 17:38
21

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.

Mike
  • 219
  • 2
  • 2
  • Very nicely done. Beats out quite (if not all) of the other results on this page by leveraging the associative array and keeping out the looping of indexOf and other operations. http://jsperf.com/merge-two-arrays-keeping-only-unique-values/21 – slickplaid Apr 16 '15 at 17:29
  • Your "hash" is the `String()` function in javascript. Which might work for primitive values (albeit with collisions between types), but it's not a good fit for arrays of objects. – Bergi Feb 19 '16 at 14:55
  • I use a similar solution, I allow passing a hashCode function or passing a string to identify a property in the object to use as the hash key. – Robert Baker Mar 22 '17 at 20:35
19
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.

GAgnew
  • 3,325
  • 3
  • 22
  • 28
  • 4
    `var test = ['a', 'b', 'c']; console.log(test);` will print `["a", "b", "c", merge: function]` – Doubidou May 04 '14 at 11:18
  • Excellent solution. I've updated the jsperf test posted above by @slickplaid (http://jsperf.com/merge-two-arrays-keeping-only-unique-values/3) and it looks like this is the fastest one of them. – Cobra Aug 08 '14 at 16:14
  • @Cobra At the risk of sounding petty, running on Chrome 40.0.2214 (Latest as of 2/18/15), this answer is 53% slower than mine. OTOH IE11 seems not optimized for my answer at all. :) Chrome mobile is still rocking it, though. Honestly, if you're using lodash/_ which most of us should, the true answer is already pretty high up on this list. :) – slickplaid Feb 18 '15 at 14:14
  • @slickplaid True, and it's quite a bit faster, even compared to the lodash/_ one. I'll probably end up switching my implementation at one point or another to something similar to yours. :D – Cobra Feb 19 '15 at 16:52
  • what is Array ? is it where your output is saved ? is it saved in Array ? I have one array that has multiple arrays inside it . Eg -> abc = [ ['a'], ['b'], ['c','d','e'] ] ...so will it be like Array.prototype.merge = function(abc) { //code } – Techdive Dec 07 '18 at 10:19
  • 2
    Not sure what the costs of indexOf() method are but this is probably the fastest ES5 compatible method. Also worth nothing that the variable length of arguments is not needed. This method is chainable. @slickplaid Loading a library is never an answer to a "how to do it in javascript" question. surely many libraries have a function to get this 7 lines job done. – dehart Dec 28 '18 at 12:40
17

EDIT:

The first solution is the fastest only when there is few items. When there is over 400 items, the Set solution becomes the fastest. And when there is 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 is 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 answers 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 is 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://jsperf.com/merge-2-arrays-without-duplicate

Pitouli
  • 319
  • 1
  • 3
  • 13
  • Thanks for this and putting the performance numbers in easy to understand ranked % figures. I was originally searching for `Set` based options because of simplicity. Given my datasets can get very large, performance is definitely a more important consideration! – OXiGEN Feb 09 '21 at 23:33
  • 1
    Turns out `Set` is much faster, especially as the records increase (for `Numbers` at least). See runnable testers at https://stackoverflow.com/a/66129415/2578125. – OXiGEN Feb 10 '21 at 00:53
  • @OXiGEN Yep, either the browser implementation of `Set` has been improved, or it depends of the type of data. I should have written my arrays initialization in my answer :( – Pitouli Mar 01 '21 at 01:41
16

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
}
Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
Nick Retallack
  • 17,432
  • 17
  • 85
  • 110
  • Don’t you mean `if (!set1.hasOwnProperty(key))`? – Gumbo Oct 18 '09 at 08:56
  • 2
    Why would I mean that? The purpose of that condition is to ignore properties that may be in the object's prototype. – Nick Retallack Oct 18 '09 at 19:13
  • It is not efficient to convert to objects in every use case. For example, we might want the union of keys from 2 arrays of `Object.keys()`. – OXiGEN Feb 09 '21 at 23:20
12

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"]
Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
Zigri2612
  • 1,832
  • 16
  • 30
11

For ES6, just one line:

a = [1, 2, 3, 4]
b = [4, 5]
[...new Set(a.concat(b))]  // [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
user1079877
  • 7,899
  • 4
  • 36
  • 44
11

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} ]
Stavm
  • 6,063
  • 5
  • 36
  • 58
9

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);
Hero Qu
  • 821
  • 9
  • 8
  • It doesn't use anything that is new in ES6, did I miss something? – Bergi Feb 19 '16 at 14:49
  • @Bergi: Yes, you are right. Thank you for noting. Somehow I was playing with this script and probably there was some version with ES6 function, but now it contains indexOf which is there for centuries. My mistake, sorry. – Hero Qu Feb 20 '16 at 15:18
9

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

enter image description here

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

enter image description here

UPDATE

I remove cases F,I,K because they modify input arrays and benchmark gives wrong results

Kamil Kiełczewski
  • 53,729
  • 20
  • 259
  • 241
  • why don't you improve the first snippet and remove the code duplication? – Marco Jan 20 '21 at 17:21
  • 1
    @Marco I don't know how to improve first snippet without loosing performance or simplicity - but I'm open to your solution - feel free to create new answer where you improve this solution in such way - everybody will be happy :) – Kamil Kiełczewski Jan 20 '21 at 17:46
  • @KamilKiełczewski : Careful! I have a strong suspicion that there is a bug in the test. When you add a console.log with the length of the arrays, you observe that the length is 0 in most cases. It feels like the array is not correctly reset between each run. And then of course, merging two null array is a very fast operation ;) This seems to be confirmed by this answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/66129415/2137476 where the K solution is fast, but less than the C solution (careful ; only look at the % comparaison; there is an error in the snippet and the chrono is wrong) – Pitouli Mar 01 '21 at 03:12
  • I confirm my suspicion. I updated the test bench so the array is parsed from an unmodified json. Obviously, every test is a bit slower, but it does not impact the ranking. And the K test is significantly slower than the C, D, L & M tests (on Mac Chrome). https://jsbench.me/mpklq0sj6l/1 – Pitouli Mar 01 '21 at 03:32
  • @Pitouli you are right - I update answer and remove solutions which changes input arrays F,I,K - because benchmark gives wrong results for it (when I have more time in future I will try to benchmark dropped solutions again) – Kamil Kiełczewski Mar 01 '21 at 05:54
8

You can achieve it simply using Underscore.js's => uniq:

array3 = _.uniq(array1.concat(array2))

console.log(array3)

It will print ["Vijendra", "Singh", "Shakya"].

Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
Mohideen bin Mohammed
  • 14,471
  • 7
  • 86
  • 95
7

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>
Sarfaraaz
  • 476
  • 5
  • 16
Karan Singla
  • 283
  • 1
  • 3
  • 8
7

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)));
TopW3
  • 1,070
  • 3
  • 11
6

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;
  };
meder omuraliev
  • 171,706
  • 64
  • 370
  • 423
  • @Mender: if order is not matter then how I do this – Vijjendra Oct 18 '09 at 08:46
  • 1
    It's not a standard ECMAScript method defined for Array.prototype, though I'm aware you can easily define it for IE and other browsers which don't support it. – meder omuraliev Oct 18 '09 at 08:50
  • Note that this algorithm is O(n^2). – Gumbo Oct 18 '09 at 08:55
  • What algorithm is your answer? – meder omuraliev Oct 18 '09 at 08:58
  • @meder: My algorithm is a union algorithm. The union itself is done in O(n+m), but sorting takes at most O(n·log n+m·log m). So the whole algorithm is O(n·log n+m·log m). – Gumbo Oct 18 '09 at 09:19
  • @LiraNuna your solution doesn't seem to preserve the order. `[a,b,c]` and `[x,b,d]` would give `[a,c,x,b,d]` instead of `[a,b,c,x,d]`. – Amarghosh Oct 18 '09 at 09:31
  • did you find out what does `>>> 0` do in there? I can't think of an example where >>> 0 would make any difference. – Amarghosh Oct 18 '09 at 10:18
  • @Amarghosh: My solution wasn't posted after the OP's comment about order. – LiraNuna Oct 18 '09 at 11:00
  • Can any of you downvoters actually explain why you downvoted? My original solution solved the OP's issue, and my updated code does the same. The selected answer did not initially account for the ordering to which it was fixed later. – meder omuraliev Oct 18 '09 at 13:51
  • It's unfair, this should definitely come on top of the jQuery one, at least. – Amarghosh Oct 18 '09 at 15:12
  • This is a good answer, although I am prompted to down-vote simply from the poor code that is shown here. That array.prototype.uniqueMerge function is horrendous, I haven't looked at the rest. – GAgnew Aug 19 '11 at 13:33
  • @meder First of all, why do you make an array of 'non-duplicates' and then concat them to the original array? why not just push the 'non-duplicates' to the original array to begin with. Secondly, why the **** do you have 'l = a.length; i < l' ?? it should be 'i < a.length'. Your causing ridiculous extra lines of execution, to the point where it is just pure wrong. – GAgnew Aug 22 '11 at 18:47
  • I should note before you try to tell me that 'l = a.length; i < l' is faster because it only does 'one calculation'; that this is not the case. Unlike some other languages, in javascript '.length' is a property on all arrays, not a calculation. – GAgnew Aug 22 '11 at 18:54
6
//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

Amarghosh
  • 55,378
  • 11
  • 87
  • 119
  • 1
    I couldn't find it in w3schools, that's why I wrote it. http://www.w3schools.com/jsref/jsref_obj_array.asp Does it take a `from` parameter btw? – Amarghosh Oct 18 '09 at 08:51
  • Thanks @Gumbo and @meder - gonna change my bookmarks now. I'm yet to do anything serious in js and I use w3schools for casual reference (that's all I've ever needed) - may be that's why I didn't realize that. – Amarghosh Oct 18 '09 at 09:15
  • MDC says indexOf requires javascript 1.6 Would it be safe to assume that the common browsers (>= FF2, > IE6 etc) would support it? – Amarghosh Oct 18 '09 at 09:19
  • 4
    IE6 doesn't support Array.prototype.indexOf, just paste the support method given by Mozilla so IE doesn't throw an error. – meder omuraliev Oct 18 '09 at 09:37
  • updated using `indexOf`. Cleaned up the code by removing commented part. @meder - thanks again. – Amarghosh Oct 18 '09 at 09:49
5
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]
Lajos Mészáros
  • 3,365
  • 2
  • 18
  • 23
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)

SuperDJ
  • 6,224
  • 7
  • 36
  • 62
cancerbero
  • 5,662
  • 1
  • 26
  • 18
4

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.

  • 1
    a couple feedbacks: I noticed that `flip` and `notf` are unused. Also `unionBy` predicate leaks implementation details (requires implicit knowledge of `Set` type). It might be nice if you could just do something like this: `union = unionBy (apply)` and `unionci = unionBy (p => x => p(x.toLowerCase()))`. That way the user just sends whatever the grouping value is to `p` – just an idea ^_^ – Thank you Sep 08 '16 at 16:12
  • `zs` variable declaration also lacks `var`/`let` keyword – Thank you Sep 08 '16 at 16:48
  • 1
    here's a code snippet to clarify [[gist: unionBy.js](https://gist.github.com/anonymous/b94c96cbb78fe9966e93964d7cb34e9e)] – Thank you Sep 08 '16 at 17:35
  • @naomik After rethinking my solution for a while I am not so sure anymore if it is the right way to pass the predicate. All you gain is a transformation of each element of the second array. I wonder if this approach solves more than just toy problems. –  Sep 09 '16 at 06:48
  • what are the benefits of functional approach in this case? – Kamil Kiełczewski Sep 28 '20 at 16:46
4

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]
DevWL
  • 11,946
  • 5
  • 71
  • 69
4

var array1 = ["one","two"];
var array2 = ["two", "three"];
var collectionOfTwoArrays = [...array1, ...array2];    
var uniqueList = array => [...new Set(array)];
console.log('Collection :');
console.log(collectionOfTwoArrays);    
console.log('Collection without duplicates :');
console.log(uniqueList(collectionOfTwoArrays));
Tushar Walzade
  • 3,182
  • 4
  • 26
  • 45
Shiva
  • 301
  • 1
  • 2
  • 14
4

You can try this:

const union = (a, b) => Array.from(new Set([...a, ...b]));

console.log(union(["neymar","messi"], ["ronaldo","neymar"]));
mitesh7172
  • 546
  • 8
  • 17
4

Here an option for objects with object arrays:

const a = [{param1: "1", param2: 1},{param1: "2", param2: 2},{param1: "4", param2: 4}]
const b = [{param1: "1", param2: 1},{param1: "4", param2: 5}]


var result = a.concat(b.filter(item =>
         !JSON.stringify(a).includes(JSON.stringify(item))
    ));

console.log(result);
//Result [{param1: "1", param2: 1},{param1: "2", param2: 2},{param1: "4", param2: 4},{param1: "4", param2: 5}]
Jöcker
  • 2,049
  • 1
  • 18
  • 30
3

for the sake of it... here is a single line solution:

const x = [...new Set([['C', 'B'],['B', 'A']].reduce( (a, e) => a.concat(e), []))].sort()
// ['A', 'B', 'C']

Not particularly readable but it may help someone:

  1. Applies a reduce function with the initial accumulator value set to an empty array.
  2. The reduce function uses concat to append each sub-array onto the accumulator array.
  3. The result of this is passed as a constructor parameter to create a new Set.
  4. The spread operator is used to convert the Set to an array.
  5. The sort() function is applied to the new array.
Mark Tyers
  • 2,282
  • 3
  • 20
  • 38
3
var arr1 = [1, 3, 5, 6];
var arr2 = [3, 6, 10, 11, 12];
arr1.concat(arr2.filter(ele => !arr1.includes(ele)));
console.log(arr1);

output :- [1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12]
Bharti Ladumor
  • 1,365
  • 1
  • 7
  • 15
3

The simplest solution with filter:

var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];

var mergedArrayWithoutDuplicates = array1.concat(
  array2.filter(seccondArrayItem => !array1.includes(seccondArrayItem))
);
Jackkobec
  • 3,665
  • 23
  • 22
3

Modular, General

This could be achieved by composing two essential functions.

const getUniqueMerge = (...arrs) => getUniqueArr(mergeArrs(...arrs))
const getUniqueArr = (array) => Array.from(new Set(array))  
const mergeArrs = (...arrs) => [].concat(...arrs)

It can handle unlimited arrays, or values

console.log(getUniqueMerge(["Vijendra","Singh"],["Singh", "Shakya"])
// ["Vijendra", "Singh", "Shakya"]

console.log(getUniqueMerge(["Sheldon", "Cooper"], ["and", "Cooper", "Amy", "and"], "Farrah", "Amy", "Fowler"))
// ["Sheldon", "Cooper", "and", "Amy", "Farrah", "Fowler"]
Ben Carp
  • 14,013
  • 7
  • 39
  • 55
2

Merge an unlimited number of arrays or non-arrays and keep it unique:

function flatMerge() {
    return Array.prototype.reduce.call(arguments, function (result, current) {
        if (!(current instanceof Array)) {
            if (result.indexOf(current) === -1) {
                result.push(current);
            }
        } else {
            current.forEach(function (value) {
                console.log(value);
                if (result.indexOf(value) === -1) {
                    result.push(value);
                }
            });
        }
        return result;
    }, []);
}

flatMerge([1,2,3], 4, 4, [3, 2, 1, 5], [7, 6, 8, 9], 5, [4], 2, [3, 2, 5]);
// [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 6, 8, 9]

flatMerge([1,2,3], [3, 2, 1, 5], [7, 6, 8, 9]);
// [1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 6, 8, 9]

flatMerge(1, 3, 5, 7);
// [1, 3, 5, 7]
TxRegex
  • 2,157
  • 17
  • 19
2

Assuming original arrays don't need de-duplication, this should be pretty fast, retain original order, and does not modify the original arrays...

function arrayMerge(base, addendum){
    var out = [].concat(base);
    for(var i=0,len=addendum.length;i<len;i++){
        if(base.indexOf(addendum[i])<0){
            out.push(addendum[i]);
        }
    }
    return out;
}

usage:

var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var array3 = arrayMerge(array1, array2);

console.log(array3);
//-> [ 'Vijendra', 'Singh', 'Shakya' ]
Billy Moon
  • 52,018
  • 22
  • 123
  • 222
2

looks like the accepted answer is the slowest in my tests;

note I am merging 2 arrays of objects by Key

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
  <meta charset="utf-8">
  <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width">
  <title>JS Bin</title>
</head>
<body>
<button type='button' onclick='doit()'>do it</button>
<script>
function doit(){
    var items = [];
    var items2 = [];
    var itemskeys = {};
    for(var i = 0; i < 10000; i++){
        items.push({K:i, C:"123"});
        itemskeys[i] = i;
    }

    for(var i = 9000; i < 11000; i++){
        items2.push({K:i, C:"123"});
    }

    console.time('merge');
    var res = items.slice(0);

    //method1();
    method0();
    //method2();

    console.log(res.length);
    console.timeEnd('merge');

    function method0(){
        for(var i = 0; i < items2.length; i++){
            var isok = 1;
            var k = items2[i].K;
            if(itemskeys[k] == null){
                itemskeys[i] = res.length;
                res.push(items2[i]);
            }
        }
    }

    function method1(){
        for(var i = 0; i < items2.length; i++){
            var isok = 1;
            var k = items2[i].K;

            for(var j = 0; j < items.length; j++){
                if(items[j].K == k){
                    isok = 0;
                    break;
                }
            }

            if(isok) res.push(items2[i]);
        }  
    }

    function method2(){
        res = res.concat(items2);
        for(var i = 0; i < res.length; ++i) {
            for(var j = i+1; j < res.length; ++j) {
                if(res[i].K === res[j].K)
                    res.splice(j--, 1);
            }
        }
    }
}
</script>
</body>
</html>
Omu
  • 64,955
  • 87
  • 259
  • 396
2

The easiest way to do this is either to use concat() to merge the arrays and then use filter() to remove the duplicates, or to use concat() and then put the merged array inside a Set().

First way:

const firstArray = [1,2, 2];
const secondArray = [3,4];
// now lets merge them
const mergedArray = firstArray.concat(secondArray); // [1,2,2,3,4]
//now use filter to remove dups
const removeDuplicates = mergedArray.filter((elem, index) =>  mergedArray.indexOf(elem) === index); // [1,2,3, 4]

Second way (but with performance implications on the UI):

const firstArray = [1,2, 2];
const secondArray = [3,4];
// now lets merge them
const mergedArray = firstArray.concat(secondArray); // [1,2,2,3,4]
const removeDuplicates = new Set(mergedArray);
Stelios Voskos
  • 506
  • 5
  • 14
  • Really tempted to use the second way but creating a new Set could be costly when doing this in UI update loop. – newguy Apr 10 '17 at 08:18
  • I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for pointing out the issue - I'll update my answer. Could you please provide a link in regards to that btw? – Stelios Voskos Apr 10 '17 at 20:10
  • Uh I dont think there is a link. I am just saying that based on my own experience working with arrays in the rendering loop in HTML5 canvas. – newguy Apr 11 '17 at 17:50
2

Using Lodash

I found @GijsjanB's answer useful but my arrays contained objects that had many attributes, so I had to de-duplicate them using one of the attributes.

Here's my solution using lodash

userList1 = [{ id: 1 }, { id: 2 }, { id: 3 }]
userList2 = [{ id: 3 }, { id: 4 }, { id: 5 }]
// id 3 is repeated in both arrays

users = _.unionWith(userList1, userList2, function(a, b){ return a.id == b.id });

// users = [{ id: 1 }, { id: 2 }, { id: 3 }, { id: 4 }, { id: 5 }]

The function you pass as the third parameter has two arguments (two elements), and it must return true if they are equal.

Felo Vilches
  • 684
  • 1
  • 7
  • 18
2

You can use loadash unionWith - _.unionWith([arrays], [comparator])

This method is like _.union except that it accepts comparator which is invoked to compare elements of arrays. Result values are chosen from the first array in which the value occurs. The comparator is invoked with two arguments: (arrVal, othVal).

var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
 
var array3 = _.unionWith(array1, array2, _.isEqual);
console.log(array3);
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.min.js"></script>
Tushar Walzade
  • 3,182
  • 4
  • 26
  • 45
Karan Patokar
  • 287
  • 1
  • 4
  • 16
2

If you do not want duplicates of a specific property (for example the ID)

let noDuplicate = array1.filter ( i => array2.findIndex(a => i.id==a.id)==-1 );
let result = [...noDuplicate, ...array2];
2

Reduce them !!!

This alternative instead of merging and deduplicating explicitly it will take one array and reduce it with another array so that each value of the first array can be iterated and destructured in an accumulative behavior, ignoring the already included values by exploiting the persistence of the array because of the recursiveness.

array2.reduce(reducer, array1.reduce(reducer, []))

Test Example:

var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya", "Shakya"];
const reducer = (accumulator, currentValue) => accumulator.includes(currentValue) ? accumulator : [...accumulator, currentValue];

console.log(
  array2.reduce(reducer, array1.reduce(reducer, []))
);

// a reduce on first array is needed to ensure a deduplicated array used as initial value on the second array being reduced

Conclusion

By far more elegant and useful when boring for-each approach wants to be avoided (not that it is not useful).

Deals with the concat() limitations on deduplication.

No need for external libraries like Underscore.js, JQuery or Lo-Dash, nor the trouble to create any built-in function to achieve the desired merged and deduplicated effect.

Oh, and HEY!, it can be done as a one-liner!!!


This answered was possible thanks to ES5 (ECMAScript 2015), beautiful include() and gorgeous reduce().

Nicolas Cabanas
  • 103
  • 1
  • 3
Salem Megiddo
  • 165
  • 12
2

In Dojo 1.6+

var unique = []; 
var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
var array3 = array1.concat(array2); // Merged both arrays

dojo.forEach(array3, function(item) {
    if (dojo.indexOf(unique, item) > -1) return;
    unique.push(item); 
});

Update

See working code.

http://jsfiddle.net/UAxJa/1/

Richard Ayotte
  • 4,671
  • 1
  • 30
  • 33
  • 1
    Why use dojo just for the forEach function? – Lajos Mészáros Jul 26 '13 at 11:19
  • Also, you don't need to merge the too arrays. Just loop through the second array and add their values if they don't exist in the first array. – Lajos Mészáros Jul 26 '13 at 11:23
  • 1
    @MészárosLajos No, I would never load Dojo just for the forEach function. I posted this in case someone was already using Dojo. As for the optimization, it's [not possible](http://jsfiddle.net/UAxJa/19/) unless you know that the first array contains unique values. – Richard Ayotte Jul 26 '13 at 16:08
1

Here is about the most effective one, in terms of computation time. Also it keeps the initial order of elements.

First filter all duplicates from second array, then concatenate what is left to the first one.

var a = [1,2,3];
var b = [5,4,3];
var c = a.concat(b.filter(function(i){
    return a.indexOf(i) == -1;
}));
console.log(c); // [1, 2, 3, 5, 4]

Here is slightly improved (faster) version of it, with a downside, that arrays must not miss values:

var i, c = a.slice(), ci = c.length;
for(i = 0; i < b.length; i++){
    if(c.indexOf(b[i]) == -1)
        c[ci++] = b[i];
}
Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
AlexTR
  • 722
  • 6
  • 12
  • I don't see why this should be more time efficient than LiraNuna's solution. You both use the concat function, and to find unique elements you both have a time complexity of O(n^2). Your solution is, however, fewer lines of code and easier to read. – Anton Gildebrand Jun 12 '14 at 08:28
  • @AntonGildebrand More useless iterations there. You can check out the comparsion here(open browser console to see): http://jsbin.com/wabahuha/1/edit?js,output – AlexTR Jun 12 '14 at 09:05
1

This is simple and can be done in one line with jQuery:

var arr1 = ['Vijendra', 'Singh'], arr2 =['Singh', 'Shakya'];

$.unique(arr1.concat(arr2))//one line

["Vijendra", "Singh", "Shakya"]
Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
ucefkh
  • 2,491
  • 2
  • 20
  • 18
  • 6
    From jQuery documentation "Note that this only works on arrays of DOM elements, not strings or numbers." (http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.unique/). The method has been deprecated. – Melanie May 25 '16 at 16:13
1

Here is a simple example:

var unique = function(array) {
    var unique = []
    for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i += 1) {
        if (unique.indexOf(array[i]) == -1) {
            unique.push(array[i])
        }
    }
    return unique
}

var uniqueList = unique(["AAPL", "MSFT"].concat(["MSFT", "BBEP", "GE"]));

We define unique(array) to remove redundant elements and use the concat function to combine two arrays.

Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
Zorayr
  • 20,232
  • 5
  • 111
  • 102
1

This is my second answer, but I believe the fastest? I'd like someone to check for me and reply in the comments.

My first attempt hit about 99k ops/sec and this go around is saying 390k ops/sec vs the other leading jsperf test of 140k (for me).

http://jsperf.com/merge-two-arrays-keeping-only-unique-values/26

I tried to minimize as much array interaction as possible this time around and it looked like I netted some performance.

function findMerge(a1, a2) {
    var len1 = a1.length;

    for (var x = 0; x < a2.length; x++) {
        var found = false;

        for (var y = 0; y < len1; y++) {
            if (a2[x] === a1[y]) {
                found = true;
                break;
            }
        }

        if(!found){
            a1.push(a2.splice(x--, 1)[0]);
        }
    }

    return a1;
}

Edit: I made some changes to my function, and the performance is drastic compared to others on the jsperf site.

David Kirk
  • 192
  • 1
  • 5
1
var MergeArrays=function(arrayOne, arrayTwo, equalityField) {
    var mergeDictionary = {};

    for (var i = 0; i < arrayOne.length; i++) {
        mergeDictionary[arrayOne[i][equalityField]] = arrayOne[i];
    }

    for (var i = 0; i < arrayTwo.length; i++) {
        mergeDictionary[arrayTwo[i][equalityField]] = arrayTwo[i];
    }

    return $.map(mergeDictionary, function (value, key) { return value });
}

Leveraging dictionaries and Jquery you could merge the two arrays and not get duplicates. In my example I'm using a given field on the object but could be just the object itself.

Zach Lewis
  • 11
  • 1
1

Another approach for your review with reduce func:

function mergeDistinct(arResult, candidate){
  if (-1 == arResult.indexOf(candidate)) {
    arResult.push(candidate);
  }
  return arResult;
}

var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];

var arMerge = [];
arMerge = array1.reduce(mergeDistinct, arMerge);
arMerge = array2.reduce(mergeDistinct, arMerge);//["Vijendra","Singh","Shakya"];
1

If you want to check for unique objects, then use JSON.stringify in your comparison.

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(JSON.stringify(a[i]) === JSON.stringify(a[j]))
                a.splice(j--, 1);
        }
    }

    return a;
}
1
Array.prototype.union = function (other_array) {
/* you can include a test to check whether other_array really is an array */
  other_array.forEach(function(v) { if(this.indexOf(v) === -1) {this.push(v);}}, this);    
}
1

One line solution as a segue to LiraNuna's:

let array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
let array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];

// Merges both arrays
let array3 = array1.concat(array2); 

//REMOVE DUPLICATE
let removeDuplicate = [...new Set(array3)];
console.log(removeDuplicate);
Jonca33
  • 2,574
  • 4
  • 20
  • 32
1

ES2019

You can use it like union(array1, array2, array3, ...)

/**
 * Merges two or more arrays keeping unique items. This method does
 * not change the existing arrays, but instead returns a new array.
 */
function union<T>(...arrays: T[]) {
  return [...new Set([...arrays].flat())];
}

It is ES2019 because of the flat() function, but you can use core-js to get it as a polyfill. The T here is TypeScript generic type, that you can remove if you are not using TypeScript. If you are using TypeScript, make sure to add "lib": ["es2019.array"] to compiler options in tsconfig.json.

or...

just use lodash _.union

orad
  • 12,746
  • 18
  • 69
  • 107
1

If you merging object arrays, consider use of lodash UnionBy function, it allows you to set custom predicate compare objects:

import { unionBy } from 'lodash';

const a = [{a: 1, b: 2}];
const b = [{a: 1, b: 3}];
const c = [{a: 2, b: 4}];

const result = UnionBy(a,b,c, x => x.a);

Result is: [{ a: 1; b: 2 }, { a: 2; b: 4 }]

First passed match from arrays is used in result

gdbdable
  • 4,065
  • 3
  • 27
  • 42
1

For n arrays, you can get the union like so.

function union(arrays) {
    return new Set(arrays.flat()).keys();
};
Crupeng
  • 285
  • 2
  • 11
1

Built a tester to check just how fast some of the performance oriented answers are. Feel free to add some more. So far, Set is both the simplest and fastest option (by bigger margins as the number of records increases), at least with simple Number types.

const records = 10000, //max records per array
  max_int = 100, //max integer value per array
  dup_rate = .5; //rate of duplication
let perf = {}, //performance logger,
  ts = 0,
  te = 0,
  array1 = [], //init arrays
  array2 = [],
  array1b = [],
  array2b = [],
  a = [];

//populate randomized arrays
for (let i = 0; i < records; i++) {
  let r = Math.random(),
    n = r * max_int;
  if (Math.random() < .5) {
    array1.push(n);
    r < dup_rate && array2.push(n);
  } else {
    array2.push(n);
    r < dup_rate && array1.push(n);
  }
}
//simple deep copies short of rfdc, in case someone wants to test with more complex data types
array1b = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(array1));
array2b = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(array2));
console.log('Records in Array 1:', array1.length, array1b.length);
console.log('Records in Array 2:', array2.length, array2b.length);

//test method 1 (jsperf per @Pitouli)
ts = performance.now();
for (let i = 0; i < array2.length; i++)
  if (array1.indexOf(array2[i]) === -1)
    array1.push(array2[i]); //modifies array1
te = performance.now();
perf.m1 = te - ts;
console.log('Method 1 merged', array1.length, 'records in:', perf.m1);
array1 = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(array1b)); //reset array1

//test method 2 (classic forEach)
ts = performance.now();
array2.forEach(v => array1.includes(v) ? null : array1.push(v)); //modifies array1
te = performance.now();
perf.m2 = te - ts;
console.log('Method 2 merged', array1.length, 'records in:', perf.m2);

//test method 3 (Simplest native option)
ts = performance.now();
a = [...new Set([...array1, ...array2])]; //does not modify source arrays
te = performance.now();
perf.m3 = te - ts;
console.log('Method 3 merged', a.length, 'records in:', perf.m3);

//test method 4 (Selected Answer)
ts = performance.now();
a = array1.concat(array2); //does not modify source arrays
for (let i = 0; i < a.length; ++i) {
  for (let j = i + 1; j < a.length; ++j) {
    if (a[i] === a[j])
      a.splice(j--, 1);
  }
}
te = performance.now();
perf.m4 = te - ts;
console.log('Method 4 merged', a.length, 'records in:', perf.m4);

//test method 5 (@Kamil Kielczewski)
ts = performance.now();

function K(arr1, arr2) {
  let r = [],
    h = {};

  while (arr1.length) {
    let e = arr1.shift(); //modifies array1
    if (!h[e]) h[e] = 1 && r.push(e);
  }

  while (arr2.length) {
    let e = arr2.shift(); //modifies array2
    if (!h[e]) h[e] = 1 && r.push(e);
  }

  return r;
}
a = K(array1, array2);
te = performance.now();
perf.m5 = te - ts;
console.log('Method 5 merged', a.length, 'records in:', perf.m4);
array1 = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(array1b)); //reset array1
array2 = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(array2b)); //reset array2


for (let i = 1; i < 6; i++) {
  console.log('Method:', i, 'speed is', (perf['m' + i] / perf.m1 * 100).toFixed(2), '% of Method 1');
}
OXiGEN
  • 995
  • 13
  • 13
  • It seems there is a high sensibility to the number of items. For less than 400 items, on my machine (Mac with Chrome), Method 1 is fastest. For more, Method 3 is fastest. But since for small numbers performance is not important, and considering that Method 3 is by far the simplest to read, it should effectively be the recommended method. – Pitouli Mar 01 '21 at 02:07
  • 1
    I tested by replacing Numbers by Strings of text. And the result is still the same: method 1 is faster for small datasets (less than 50 items with the Strings), and Set is incredibly faster when size increase. https://gist.github.com/Pitouli/3165d59ae3a1fb90bf35ee7dbbebc28f – Pitouli Mar 01 '21 at 02:41
0

Here is my solution https://gist.github.com/4692150 with deep equals and easy to use result:

function merge_arrays(arr1,arr2)
{
   ... 
   return {first:firstPart,common:commonString,second:secondPart,full:finalString}; 
}

console.log(merge_arrays(
[
[1,"10:55"] ,
[2,"10:55"] ,
[3,"10:55"]
],[
[3,"10:55"] ,
[4,"10:55"] ,
[5,"10:55"]
]).second);

result:
[
[4,"10:55"] ,
[5,"10:55"]
]
Shimon Doodkin
  • 3,676
  • 29
  • 33
0

Just wrote before for the same reason (works with any amount of arrays):

/**
 * Returns with the union of the given arrays.
 *
 * @param Any amount of arrays to be united.
 * @returns {array} The union array.
 */
function uniteArrays()
{
    var union = [];
    for (var argumentIndex = 0; argumentIndex < arguments.length; argumentIndex++)
    {
        eachArgument = arguments[argumentIndex];
        if (typeof eachArgument !== 'array')
        {
            eachArray = eachArgument;
            for (var index = 0; index < eachArray.length; index++)
            {
                eachValue = eachArray[index];
                if (arrayHasValue(union, eachValue) == false)
                union.push(eachValue);
            }
        }
    }

    return union;
}    

function arrayHasValue(array, value)
{ return array.indexOf(value) != -1; }
Geri Borbás
  • 13,770
  • 13
  • 97
  • 158
0
Array.prototype.pushUnique = function(values)
{
    for (var i=0; i < values.length; i++)
        if (this.indexOf(values[i]) == -1)
            this.push(values[i]);
};

Try:

var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];
array1.pushUnique(array2);
alert(array1.toString());  // Output: Vijendra,Singh,Shakya
StanE
  • 2,218
  • 22
  • 34
0

If, like me, you need to support older browsers, this works with IE6+

function es3Merge(a, b) {
    var hash = {},
        i = (a = a.slice(0)).length,
        e;

    while (i--) {
        hash[a[i]] = 1;
    }

    for (i = 0; i < b.length; i++) {
        hash[e = b[i]] || a.push(e);
    }

    return a;
};

http://jsperf.com/merge-two-arrays-keeping-only-unique-values/22

Stephen S
  • 413
  • 2
  • 7
0

I came across this post when trying to do the same thing, but I wanted to try something different. I just made up the function below. I also had another variable, 'compareKeys', (array of keys) for doing shallow object comparison. I'm going to probably change it to a function in the future.

Anyway, I didn't include that part, because it doesn't apply to the question. I also put my code into the jsperf going around. Edited: I fixed my entry in jsperf. My function gets about 99k ops/sec compared to 140k.

To the code: I first make an array of the available indices and then eliminate them by iterating over the first array. Finally, I push in the 'left-overs' by using the trimmed down array of indices that didn't match between the two arrays.

http://jsperf.com/merge-two-arrays-keeping-only-unique-values/26

function indiceMerge(a1, a2) {
    var ai = [];
    for (var x = 0; x < a2.length; x++) {
        ai.push(x)
    };

    for (var x = 0; x < a1.length; x++) {
        for (var y = 0; y < ai.length; y++) {
            if (a1[x] === a2[ai[y]]) {
                ai.splice(y, 1);
                y--;
            }
        }
    }

    for (var x = 0; x < ai.length; x++) {
        a1.push(a2[ai[x]]);
    }

    return a1;
}
Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
David Kirk
  • 192
  • 1
  • 5
  • What does this do that's different? – djechlin Jan 10 '19 at 17:58
  • I wrote it with performance in mind. There are many ways to do what the OP wants, but performance is usually overlooked. You can check it out [link](https://jsperf.com/merge-two-arrays-keeping-only-unique-values/45) for an updated one, three years later. @djechlin – David Kirk Jan 11 '19 at 19:53
0

Usage: https://gist.github.com/samad-aghaei/7250ffb74ed80732debb1cbb14d2bfb0

var _uniqueMerge = function(opts, _ref){
    for(var key in _ref)
        if (_ref && _ref[key] && _ref[key].constructor && _ref[key].constructor === Object)
          _ref[key] = _uniqueMerge((opts ? opts[key] : null), _ref[key] );
        else if(opts && opts.hasOwnProperty(key))
          _ref[key] = opts[key];
        else _ref[key] = _ref[key][1];
    return _ref;
}
Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
0

The best and simplest way to do that is using the function "some()" of JavaScript that returns true or false indicating if the array contains the object's element. You can make this:

var array1 = ["Vijendra","Singh"]; 
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];

var array3 = array1;

array2.forEach(function(elementArray2){
    var isEquals = array1.some(function(elementArray1){
        return elementArray1 === elementArray2;
    })
    if(!isEquals){
        array3.push(elementArray2);
    }
});
console.log(array3);

The results:

["Vijendra", "Singh", "Shakya"]

ss you wish... without duplicate it...

Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
Thiago Araújo
  • 708
  • 6
  • 7
0

If you're purely using underscore.js, it doesn't have unionWith, unionBy

you can try out : _.uniq(_.union(arr1, arr2), (obj) => obj.key) ( key is the key param of each object ) this should help to get unique after union of both arrays.

0

I think this works faster.

removeDup = a => {

    for (let i = a.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
        for (let j = i-1; j >= 0; j--) {
            if (a[i] === a[j])
                a.splice(j--, 1);
        }
    }

    return a;
}
Tushar Walzade
  • 3,182
  • 4
  • 26
  • 45
Iqbal Jan
  • 434
  • 2
  • 5
  • 18
0
   //1.merge two array into one array

   var arr1 = [0, 1, 2, 4];
   var arr2 = [4, 5, 6];

   //for merge array we use "Array.concat"

   let combineArray = arr1.concat(arr2); //output

   alert(combineArray); //now out put is 0,1,2,4,4,5,6 but 4 reapeat

   //2.same thing with "Spread Syntex"

   let spreadArray = [...arr1, ...arr2];

   alert(spreadArray);  //now out put is 0,1,2,4,4,5,6 but 4 reapete


   /*
       if we need remove duplicate element method use are
       1.Using set
       2.using .filter
       3.using .reduce
   */
aliaksei
  • 676
  • 1
  • 9
  • 22
0

Here is another neat solution using Set:

const o1 = {a: 1};
const arr1 = ['!@#$%^&*()', 'gh', 123, o1, 1, true, undefined, null];
const arr2 = ['!@#$%^&*()', 123, 'abc', o1, 0x001, true, void 0, 0];

const mergeUnique = (...args) => [ ...new Set([].concat(...args)) ];

console.log(mergeUnique(arr1, arr2));
Slavik Meltser
  • 7,008
  • 2
  • 37
  • 37
-1

This is the function I use when I need to merge, (or return the union of) two arrays.

var union = function (a, b) {
  for (var i = 0; i < b.length; i++)
    if (a.indexOf(b[i]) === -1)
      a.push(b[i]);
  return a;
};

var a = [1, 2, 3, 'a', 'b', 'c'];
var b = [2, 3, 4, 'b', 'c', 'd'];

a = union(a, b);
//> [1, 2, 3, "a", "b", "c", 4, "d"]

var array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];

var array3 = union(array1, array2);
//> ["Vijendra", "Singh", "Shakya"]
waltfy
  • 137
  • 3
  • 16
-1
function set(a, b) {
  return a.concat(b).filter(function(x,i,c) { return c.indexOf(x) == i; });
}
jremmen
  • 142
  • 1
  • 5
-1

This is fast, collates any number of arrays, and works with both numbers and strings.

function collate(a){ // Pass an array of arrays to collate into one array
    var h = { n: {}, s: {} };
    for (var i=0; i < a.length; i++) for (var j=0; j < a[i].length; j++)
        (typeof a[i][j] === "number" ? h.n[a[i][j]] = true : h.s[a[i][j]] = true);
    var b = Object.keys(h.n);
    for (var i=0; i< b.length; i++)
        b[i]=Number(b[i]);
    return b.concat(Object.keys(h.s));
}

> a = [ [1,2,3], [3,4,5], [1,5,6], ["spoon", "fork", "5"] ]
> collate( a )

[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, "5", "spoon", "fork"]

If you don't need to distinguish between 5 and "5", then

function collate(a){
    var h = {};
    for (i=0; i < a.length; i++) for (var j=0; j < a[i].length; j++)
        h[a[i][j]] = typeof a[i][j] === "number";
    for (i=0, b=Object.keys(h); i< b.length; i++)
        if (h[b[i]])
            b[i]=Number(b[i]);
    return b;
}
[1, 2, 3, 4, "5", 6, "spoon", "fork"]

will do.

And if you don't mind (or would prefer) all values ending up as strings anyway then just this:

function collate(a){
    var h = {};
    for (var i=0; i < a.length; i++)
        for (var j=0; j < a[i].length; j++)
            h[a[i][j]] = true;
    return Object.keys(h)
}
["1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "spoon", "fork"]

If you don't actually need an array, but just want to collect the unique values and iterate over them, then (in most browsers (and node.js)):

h = new Map();
for (i=0; i < a.length; i++)
    for (var j=0; j < a[i].length; j++)
        h.set(a[i][j]);

It might be preferable.

Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
Oliver Low
  • 29
  • 5
  • 1
    Thank you so much. In synchronous jQuery operations this was that variation that worked for me for inline generated arrays. – Ruslan Abuzant Apr 08 '16 at 11:30
-1

Better option for large inputs will be to sort arrays. Then merge them.

function sortFunction(a, b) {
        return a - b;
}

arr1.sort(sortFunction);
arr2.sort(sortFunction);

function mergeDedup(arr1, arr2) {

    var i = 0, j = 0, result = [];
    while (i < arr1.length && j < arr2.length) {

        if (arr1[i] < arr2[j]) {
            writeIfNotSameAsBefore(result, arr1[i]);
            i++;
        }
        else if (arr1[i] > arr2[j]) {
            writeIfNotSameAsBefore(result, arr2[j]);
            j++;
        }
        else {
            writeIfNotSameAsBefore(result, arr1[i]);
            i++;
            j++;
        }

    }

    while (i < arr1.length) {
        writeIfNotSameAsBefore(result, arr1[i]);
        i++;
    }

    while (j < arr2.length) {
        writeIfNotSameAsBefore(result, arr2[j]);
        j++;
    }
    return result;
}

function writeIfNotSameAsBefore(arr, item) {
    if (arr[arr.length - 1] !== item) {
        arr[arr.length] = item;
    }
    return arr.length;
}

Sorting will take O(nlogn + mlogm), where n and m are length of the arrays, and O(x) for merging, where x = Max(n, m);

-1

You can merge the results and filter the duplicates:

let combinedItems = [];

// items is an Array of arrays: [[1,2,3],[1,5,6],...]    
items.forEach(currItems => {
    if (currItems && currItems.length > 0) {
        combinedItems = combinedItems.concat(currItems);
    }
});

let noDuplicateItems = combinedItems.filter((item, index) => {
    return !combinedItems.includes(item, index + 1);
});
Muzikant
  • 7,834
  • 5
  • 50
  • 85
-1

/**
 * De-duplicate an array keeping only unique values.
 * Use hash table (js object) to filter-out duplicates.
 * The order of array elements is maintained.
 * This algorithm is particularly efficient for large arrays (linear time).
 */
function arrayUniqueFast(arr) {
 var seen = {};
 var result = [];
 var i, len = arr.length;
 for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
  var item = arr[i];
  // hash table lookup
  if (!seen[item]) {
   result.push(item);
   seen[item] = true;
  }
 }
 return result;
}

///// test
var array1 = ["Vijendra", "Singh"];
var array2 = ["Singh", "Shakya"];

var result = arrayUniqueFast(array1.concat(array2));
document.write('<br>result: ' + result);

For other methods to dedup an array, please see my benchmarks at: https://jsperf.com/de-duplicate-an-array-keeping-only-unique-values

Amr Ali
  • 1,315
  • 13
  • 10
-1

I learned a cheeky little way to concatenate two arrays with the spread operator:

var array1 = ['tom', 'dick', 'harry'];
var array2 = ['martin', 'ricky'];

array1.push(...array2);

The "..." spread operator splits the following array into individual items and then push can handle them as separate arguments.

Lightfooted
  • 769
  • 1
  • 6
  • 13
-1
var a = [1,2,3]
var b = [1,2,4,5]

I like one liners. This will push distinct b elements to a

b.forEach(item => a.includes(item) ? null : a.push(item));

And another version that will not modify a

var c = a.slice();
b.forEach(item => c.includes(item) ? null : c.push(item));
Pawel
  • 10,190
  • 4
  • 56
  • 60
-1

Given two sorted arrays of simple types without duplicates, this will merge them in O(n) time, and the output will be also sorted.

function merge(a, b) {
    let i=0;
    let j=0;
    let c = [];
    for (;;) {
        if (i == a.length) {
            if (j == b.length) return c;
            c.push(b[j++]);
        } else if (j == b.length || a[i] < b[j]) {
            c.push(a[i++]);
        } else {
            if (a[i] == b[j]) ++i;   // skip duplicates
            c.push(b[j++]);
        }
    }
}
John Henckel
  • 7,448
  • 2
  • 55
  • 68
  • What's different about this from the accepted answer and several other ~20 lines of raw JS answers? – djechlin Jan 10 '19 at 17:56
  • @djechlin it's different because, as I said in the description, it takes "sorted arrays of simple types" and it is pretty good because it is portable and O(n) which is faster than answers O(n^2). but no worries. i don't object to the down-vote! – John Henckel Jan 11 '19 at 19:04
-2

Use:

Array.prototype.merge = function (arr) {
    var key;
    for(key in arr) 
        this[key] = arr[key];
};
Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
MistereeDevlord
  • 862
  • 7
  • 10
  • 1
    This doesn't merge arrays—this just overwrites one with another. E.g., `var f = [1]; f.merge([2]);` – Ian Hunter Dec 30 '13 at 23:20
  • Hmmm... but I thought the keys that are already there stay, and you want the new ones and the merged one to overwrite? Oh maybe I was thinking dictionaries or something. – MistereeDevlord Apr 15 '15 at 13:08
-2

const merge(...args)=>(new Set([].concat(...args)))

Dwight Lisper
  • 315
  • 3
  • 9
-5

Take two arrays a and b

var a = ['a','b','c'];

var b = ['d','e','f'];
var c = a.concat(b); 


//c is now an an array with: ['a','b','c','d','e','f']
Flexo
  • 82,006
  • 22
  • 174
  • 256
user1948368
  • 177
  • 2
  • 3
  • 2
    what browsers support `concat`? – chovy Dec 22 '13 at 04:37
  • 1
    @chovy - concat is an old method, from ECMAScript 3. You shouldn't have any problem using it. See the compatibility table [on the MDN](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Array/concat). – Ian Hunter Dec 30 '13 at 22:54
  • 37
    Does not meet de-duplicate criterion – hendrix Mar 28 '14 at 13:57
  • 2
    This answer was copied from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3975170/javascript-how-to-join-combine-two-arrays-to-concatenate-into-one-array – xoxox Apr 22 '16 at 20:02