104

Say I have an array of [34, 35, 45, 48, 49] and another array of [48, 55]. How can I get a resulting array of [34, 35, 45, 48, 49, 55]?

2
  • with ES6 goodies it will be just a oneliner with no dependencies. Sad that we need to wait a lot of time before it will be available in all modern browsers. Anyway, check my answer Commented Jan 17, 2015 at 7:06
  • This implementation in Code Golf is IMO the most elegant and efficient solution out there. Commented Oct 19, 2015 at 6:16

21 Answers 21

201

With the arrival of ES6 with sets and spread operator, you can write the following cryptic one liner:

var a = [34, 35, 45, 48, 49];
var b = [48, 55];
var union = [...new Set([...a, ...b])];
console.log(union);

Little explanation about this line: [...a, ...b] concatenates two arrays, you can use a.concat(b) as well. new Set() create a set out of it and thus your union. And the last [...x] converts it back to an array.

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

4 Comments

what about performance
@RPallas I have not done any testing (you can easily do them here jsperf.com). But all the functions here are native, which suggests that it should be faster then anything non-native.
Performance test here: jsperf.com/union-speeds/1 It's a bit slower than the lodash solution, but unlikely to matter unless you're performing lots of big unions in real-time. And if that's the case, you should probably look into an even faster solution like Lazy.js
Typescript was complaining and I replaced the spread operator with Array.from(new Set([...a, ...b])) and it worked.
53

If you don't need to keep the order, and consider 45 and "45" to be the same:

function union_arrays (x, y) {
  var obj = {};
  for (var i = x.length-1; i >= 0; -- i)
     obj[x[i]] = x[i];
  for (var i = y.length-1; i >= 0; -- i)
     obj[y[i]] = y[i];
  var res = []
  for (var k in obj) {
    if (obj.hasOwnProperty(k))  // <-- optional
      res.push(obj[k]);
  }
  return res;
}

console.log(union_arrays([34,35,45,48,49], [44,55]));

6 Comments

don't care about the order. this worked fine. thx
This will fail for arrays of objects. union_arrays([{a:1}], [{b:2}]) will return [{b:2}].
Why not skip declaring res and the whole "for( var k in obj)... push..." and just return Object.keys(obj)? You can also combine those two initial for-loops into one with "var both = x.concat(y)" to concatenate the two arrays into one. That way, you can union any number of arrays, too.
@Jemenake Object.keys() does not exist in 2010.
perhaps the i >= 0 can be substituted for i.
|
52

If you use the library underscore you can write like this

var unionArr = _.union([34,35,45,48,49], [48,55]);
console.log(unionArr);
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.9.1/underscore-min.js"></script>

Ref: http://underscorejs.org/#union

2 Comments

I wouldn't normally reference a whole new library for one small piece of functionality, but the underscore library has a LOT of really useful functions to work with arrays. I also ended up using the _.intersection and _.without functions.
16

I'm probably wasting time on a dead thread here. I just had to implement this and went looking to see if I was wasting my time.

I really like KennyTM's answer. That's just how I would attack the problem. Merge the keys into a hash to naturally eliminate duplicates and then extract the keys. If you actually have jQuery you can leverage its goodies to make this a 2 line problem and then roll it into an extension. The each() in jQuery will take care of not iterating over items where hasOwnProperty() is false.

jQuery.fn.extend({
    union: function(array1, array2) {
        var hash = {}, union = [];
        $.each($.merge($.merge([], array1), array2), function (index, value) { hash[value] = value; });
        $.each(hash, function (key, value) { union.push(key); } );
        return union;
    }
});

Note that both of the original arrays are left intact. Then you call it like this:

var union = $.union(array1, array2);

4 Comments

I think this is the best answer there is because this function appears to work in O(2n) (faster due to the two non-nested for loops) as opposed to the rest which appear to work in a O(n^2) (slower) fashion.
Hengjie, Really O(2n)? I think, $.merge has O(n) or even O(n*n) not O(1). This can be optimized to O(3n) if fill hash separately without merges
@Hengjie: Kenny's answer is O(3n)
O(n) == O(2n) == O(3n)
11

If you wants to concatenate two arrays without any duplicate value,Just try this

var a=[34, 35, 45, 48, 49];
var b=[48, 55];
var c=a.concat(b).sort();
var res=c.filter((value,pos) => {return c.indexOf(value) == pos;} );

3 Comments

Great idea, but it change the order's items.
just remove sort method, It will solve your problem
nice! or a variation if you are already in a method chaining (you don't have a reference to c): ``` [1,2,3].concat([2,3,4]) .filter((value, pos, arr)=>arr.indexOf(value)===pos)}```
9

function unique(arrayName)
{
  var newArray=new Array();
  label: for(var i=0; i<arrayName.length;i++ )
  {  
    for(var j=0; j<newArray.length;j++ )
    {
      if(newArray[j]==arrayName[i]) 
        continue label;
    }
    newArray[newArray.length] = arrayName[i];
  }
  return newArray;
}

var arr1 = new Array(0,2,4,4,4,4,4,5,5,6,6,6,7,7,8,9,5,1,2,3,0);
var arr2= new Array(3,5,8,1,2,32,1,2,1,2,4,7,8,9,1,2,1,2,3,4,5);
var union = unique(arr1.concat(arr2));
console.log(union);

10 Comments

Maybe I'm just confused, but how would this work? You're passing arr3, but there is no arr3, and even if there was it doesn't look like it's actually a union on arr1 | arr2 like he requested?
I'm confused how this would not work?
@Angelo R.: you're right: "there is no arr3."
var arr2 = []; if (currTaskIDs != '') { if( $.inArray(currTaskIDs, arr2) == -1) { arr2.push(currTaskIDs); } arr2 = unique(arr2.concat(arr)); } } now, currTaskIDs is = 34,35,45,48,49 if i select say 50, it removes all of them and just displays 50
by the way, if i just use this: var currTaskIDs = $("#taskIDList").val(); // begin: create the task list: if (currTaskIDs != '') { if( $.inArray(currTaskIDs, arr) == -1) { arr.push(currTaskIDs); } arr = unique(arr); } it works perfectly first time. if i add another value to my currTaskIDs, then it becomes something like : 34,35,45,48,49,50,34,35,45,48,49,50,38
|
7

Adapted from: https://stackoverflow.com/a/4026828/1830259

Array.prototype.union = function(a) 
{
    var r = this.slice(0);
    a.forEach(function(i) { if (r.indexOf(i) < 0) r.push(i); });
    return r;
};

Array.prototype.diff = function(a)
{
    return this.filter(function(i) {return a.indexOf(i) < 0;});
};

var s1 = [1, 2, 3, 4];
var s2 = [3, 4, 5, 6];

console.log("s1: " + s1);
console.log("s2: " + s2);
console.log("s1.union(s2): " + s1.union(s2));
console.log("s2.union(s1): " + s2.union(s1));
console.log("s1.diff(s2): " + s1.diff(s2));
console.log("s2.diff(s1): " + s2.diff(s1));

// Output:
// s1: 1,2,3,4
// s2: 3,4,5,6
// s1.union(s2): 1,2,3,4,5,6
// s2.union(s1): 3,4,5,6,1,2
// s1.diff(s2): 1,2
// s2.diff(s1): 5,6 

Comments

6

I like Peter Ajtai's concat-then-unique solution, but the code's not very clear. Here's a nicer alternative:

function unique(x) {
  return x.filter(function(elem, index) { return x.indexOf(elem) === index; });
};
function union(x, y) {
  return unique(x.concat(y));
};

Since indexOf returns the index of the first occurence, we check this against the current element's index (the second parameter to the filter predicate).

Comments

4

Shorter version of kennytm's answer:

function unionArrays(a, b) {
    const cache = {};

    a.forEach(item => cache[item] = item);
    b.forEach(item => cache[item] = item);

    return Object.keys(cache).map(key => cache[key]);
};

Comments

3

You can use a jQuery plugin: jQuery Array Utilities

For example the code below

$.union([1, 2, 2, 3], [2, 3, 4, 5, 5])

will return [1,2,3,4,5]

1 Comment

This union function also supports an arbitrary number of arrays, This package jquery-array-utilities can also be installed using bower. I would like like to add a disclaimer that I originally made the plugin :)
3

I would first concatenate the arrays, then I would return only the unique value.

You have to create your own function to return unique values. Since it is a useful function, you might as well add it in as a functionality of the Array.

In your case with arrays array1 and array2 it would look like this:

  1. array1.concat(array2) - concatenate the two arrays
  2. array1.concat(array2).unique() - return only the unique values. Here unique() is a method you added to the prototype for Array.

The whole thing would look like this:

Array.prototype.unique = function () {
    var r = new Array();
    o: for(var i = 0, n = this.length; i < n; i++)
    {
        for(var x = 0, y = r.length; x < y; x++)
        {
            if(r[x]==this[i])
            {
                continue o;
            }
        }
        r[r.length] = this[i];
    }
    return r;
}
var array1 = [34,35,45,48,49];
var array2 = [34,35,45,48,49,55];

// concatenate the arrays then return only the unique values
console.log(array1.concat(array2).unique());

1 Comment

I prefer to use if(r.indexOf(this[i])!==-1) continue; instead inner loop and r.push(this[i]) instead r[r.length]=this[i] here
2
function unite(arr1, arr2, arr3) {
 newArr=arr1.concat(arr2).concat(arr3);

 a=newArr.filter(function(value){
   return !arr1.some(function(value2){
      return value == value2;
   });
 });

console.log(arr1.concat(a));

}//This is for Sorted union following the order :)

Comments

2

function unionArrays() {
    var args = arguments,
    l = args.length,
    obj = {},
    res = [],
    i, j, k;

    while (l--) {
        k = args[l];
        i = k.length;

        while (i--) {
            j = k[i];
            if (!obj[j]) {
                obj[j] = 1;
                res.push(j);
            }
        }   
    }

    return res;
}
var unionArr = unionArrays([34, 35, 45, 48, 49], [44, 55]);
console.log(unionArr);

Somewhat similar in approach to alejandro's method, but a little shorter and should work with any number of arrays.

Comments

2

function unionArray(arrayA, arrayB) {
  var obj = {},
      i = arrayA.length,
      j = arrayB.length,
      newArray = [];
  while (i--) {
    if (!(arrayA[i] in obj)) {
      obj[arrayA[i]] = true;
      newArray.push(arrayA[i]);
    }
  }
  while (j--) {
    if (!(arrayB[j] in obj)) {
      obj[arrayB[j]] = true;
      newArray.push(arrayB[j]);
    }
  }
  return newArray;
}
var unionArr = unionArray([34, 35, 45, 48, 49], [44, 55]);
console.log(unionArr);

Faster http://jsperf.com/union-array-faster

Comments

1

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; }

Comments

1

Simple way to deal with merging single array values.

var values[0] = {"id":1235,"name":"value 1"}
values[1] = {"id":4323,"name":"value 2"}

var object=null;
var first=values[0];
for (var i in values) 
 if(i>0)    
 object= $.merge(values[i],first)

Comments

1

You can try these:

function union(a, b) {
    return a.concat(b).reduce(function(prev, cur) {
        if (prev.indexOf(cur) === -1) prev.push(cur);
        return prev;
    }, []);    
}

or

function union(a, b) {
    return a.concat(b.filter(function(el) {
        return a.indexOf(el) === -1;
    }));
}

Comments

1

ES2015 version

Array.prototype.diff = function(a) {return this.filter(i => a.indexOf(i) < 0)};

Array.prototype.union = function(a) {return [...this.diff(a), ...a]}

4 Comments

contaminating native types prototypes like that is a bad idea...
Do explain how adding functionality equates to contamination. Opinions are welcome as long as they are backed by logical reasoning.
Fair enough. I'm sorry whatever happened to you. Still it would be nice to keep the personal experiences personal. This is not a scratchpad. It's a QA site.
That would be nice.
1

If you want a custom equals function to match your elements, you can use this function in ES2015:

function unionEquals(left, right, equals){
    return left.concat(right).reduce( (acc,element) => {
        return acc.some(elt => equals(elt, element))? acc : acc.concat(element)
    }, []);
}

It traverses the left+right array. Then for each element, will fill the accumulator if it does not find that element in the accumulator. At the end, there are no duplicate as specified by the equals function.

Pretty, but probably not very efficient with thousands of objects.

Comments

0

I think it would be simplest to create a new array, adding the unique values only as determined by indexOf.

This seems to me to be the most straightforward solution, though I don't know if it is the most efficient. Collation is not preserved.

var a = [34, 35, 45, 48, 49],
    b = [48, 55];

var c = union(a, b);

function union(a, b) { // will work for n >= 2 inputs
    var newArray = [];

    //cycle through input arrays
    for (var i = 0, l = arguments.length; i < l; i++) {

        //cycle through each input arrays elements
        var array = arguments[i];
        for (var ii = 0, ll = array.length; ii < ll; ii++) {
            var val = array[ii];

            //only add elements to the new array if they are unique
            if (newArray.indexOf(val) < 0) newArray.push(val);
        }
    }
    return newArray;
}

Comments

0
[i for( i of new Set(array1.concat(array2)))]

Let me break this into parts for you

// This is a list by comprehension
// Store each result in an element of the array
[i
// will be placed in the variable "i", for each element of...
    for( i of
    // ... the Set which is made of...
            new Set(
                // ...the concatenation of both arrays
                array1.concat(array2)
            )
    )
]

In other words, it first concatenates both and then it removes the duplicates (a Set, by definition cannot have duplicates)

Do note, though, that the order of the elements is not guaranteed, in this case.

Comments

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.