ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

How to get the difference between two arrays in JavaScript?

Is there a way to return the difference between two arrays in JavaScript?

For example:

var a1 = ['a', 'b'];
var a2 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd'];

// need ["c", "d"]
Symmetric or non-symmetric?
With new ES6 function this can be done as a simple one liner (it will take a lot of time to be able to use in all major browsers). In any case check my answer
an important aspect of the solution is performance. the asymptotic time complexity of this type of operation - in other languages - is O(a1.length x log(a2.length)) - is this performance possible in JavaScript?
Check my library, it can help you with this, @netilon/differify is one of the fastest diff libraries for object/array comparison: npmjs.com/package/@netilon/differify
1. Convert a1 into a set. o(a1). 2. Iterate over e2 to see what it has that e1 does not. o(e2). 3. Push the diff into another array then return it after step 2 is finished.

u
user229044

There is a better way using ES7:

Intersection

 let intersection = arr1.filter(x => arr2.includes(x));

https://i.stack.imgur.com/uasoX.png

For [1,2,3] [2,3] it will yield [2,3]. On the other hand, for [1,2,3] [2,3,5] will return the same thing.

Difference

let difference = arr1.filter(x => !arr2.includes(x));

https://i.stack.imgur.com/mEtro.png

For [1,2,3] [2,3] it will yield [1]. On the other hand, for [1,2,3] [2,3,5] will return the same thing.

For a symmetric difference, you can do:

let difference = arr1
                 .filter(x => !arr2.includes(x))
                 .concat(arr2.filter(x => !arr1.includes(x)));

https://i.stack.imgur.com/zb1hW.png

This way, you will get an array containing all the elements of arr1 that are not in arr2 and vice-versa

As @Joshaven Potter pointed out on his answer, you can add this to Array.prototype so it can be used like this:

Array.prototype.diff = function(arr2) { return this.filter(x => !arr2.includes(x)); }
[1, 2, 3].diff([2, 3])

Computing the Array difference is a so called set operation, because property lookup is the very own job of Sets, which are orders of magnitude faster then indexOf/includes. Simply put, your solution is very inefficient and rather slow.
@ftor but with Set, values have to be unique, no?
@LuisSieira I get that it would work for [1,2,3] [2,3,5] given that the numbers are unique but if you had say [1,1,2,3] [1,2,3,5] and expected [1] you couldn't use Set. Your solution wouldn't work either though :-/ I ended up creating this function because I couldn't figure out a satisfactory way to do it more succinctly. If you have any ideas on how to do that, I'd love to know!
Isn't Array.includes() ES7 feature instead of ES6? (1) (2) — and to continue, with ES6 you could use Array.some() e.g. let intersection = aArray.filter(a => bArray.some(b => a === b)), no?
@chovy arr1 and arr2 are the arrays you're performing the operation with.
d
double-beep

Array.prototype.diff = function(a) { return this.filter(function(i) {return a.indexOf(i) < 0;}); }; ////////////// // Examples // ////////////// const dif1 = [1,2,3,4,5,6].diff( [3,4,5] ); console.log(dif1); // => [1, 2, 6] const dif2 = ["test1", "test2","test3","test4","test5","test6"].diff(["test1","test2","test3","test4"]); console.log(dif2); // => ["test5", "test6"]

Note .indexOf() and .filter() are not available before IE9.


The only browser that matters that doesn't support filter and indexOf is IE8. IE9 does support them both. So it's not wrong.
ie7 and ie8 are still (unfortunately) very relevant, however you can find polyfill code for both functions on the MDN site: developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/… developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/… Load in the code listed under "compatability" via an IE conditional & BOOM. Ie7/8 are supported.
This solution has a run time of O(n^2) a linear solution would be far more efficient.
If you use the function like this: [1,2,3].diff([3,4,5]) it will return [1,2] instead of [1,2,4,5] so it doesn't solve the problem in the original question, something to be aware of.
@AlinPurcaru Not supported by archaic browsers != wrong. Considering Netscape 2.0, most of the JS code here is "wrong" by this definition. It's a silly thing to say.
T
Thinker

This answer was written in 2009, so it is a bit outdated, also it's rather educational for understanding the problem. Best solution I'd use today would be

let difference = arr1.filter(x => !arr2.includes(x));

(credits to other author here)

I assume you are comparing a normal array. If not, you need to change the for loop to a for .. in loop.

function arr_diff (a1, a2) { var a = [], diff = []; for (var i = 0; i < a1.length; i++) { a[a1[i]] = true; } for (var i = 0; i < a2.length; i++) { if (a[a2[i]]) { delete a[a2[i]]; } else { a[a2[i]] = true; } } for (var k in a) { diff.push(k); } return diff; } console.log(arr_diff(['a', 'b'], ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd'])); console.log(arr_diff("abcd", "abcde")); console.log(arr_diff("zxc", "zxc"));


This may work but it does three loops to accomplish what can be done in one line of code using the filter method of Array.
Just to be clear, this implements the symmetric difference of a1 and a2, unlike the other answers posted here.
This isn't the best answer, but I'm giving it a charity upvote, to help make up for the unfair downvotes. Only wrong answers ought to be downvoted, and if I was working on a project with cruft-browsers in scope (tough times happen), this answer might even be helpful.
May I know what will happen when var a1 = ['a', 'b']; and var a2 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'b'];, it will return wrong answer, i.e. ['c', 'd', 'b'] instead of ['c', 'd'].
The fastest way is the most obviously naive solution. I tested all of the proposed solutions for symmetric diff in this thread, and the winner is: function diff2(a, b) { var i, la = a.length, lb = b.length, res = []; if (!la) return b; else if (!lb) return a; for (i = 0; i < la; i++) { if (b.indexOf(a[i]) === -1) res.push(a[i]); } for (i = 0; i < lb; i++) { if (a.indexOf(b[i]) === -1) res.push(b[i]); } return res; }
m
mahemoff

This is by far the easiest way to get exactly the result you are looking for, using jQuery:

var diff = $(old_array).not(new_array).get();

diff now contains what was in old_array that is not in new_array


@Batman Yes, but only if they are references to the same object ({a: 1} != {a: 1}) (proof)
Is it possible to use it with arrays holding data of a custom object? I tried it actually the same way but it didn't worked. Any ideas will be highly appreciable.
Is this a trick? The doc considers this method as part of the DOM Element Methods and not as a general array helper. So it might work this way now, but maybe not in future versions, as it wasn't intended to use it in this way. Although, I'd be happy if it would officially be a general array helper.
@robsch When you use .not with an array, jQuery uses it's built-in utility .grep() which is specifically for filtering arrays. I can't see this changing.
@vsync Sounds like you are after a symmetric difference
n
nickf

The difference method in Underscore (or its drop-in replacement, Lo-Dash) can do this too:

(R)eturns the values from array that are not present in the other arrays

_.difference([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [5, 2, 10]);
=> [1, 3, 4]

As with any Underscore function, you could also use it in a more object-oriented style:

_([1, 2, 3, 4, 5]).difference([5, 2, 10]);

I think it's a good solution performance-wise, especially as lodash and underscore keep battling for the best implementation. Also, it's IE6-compatible.
Beware, this implementation will not work for arrays of objects. See stackoverflow.com/q/8672383/14731 for more information.
As one of the answers mentions there, it works if it's the same object, but not if two objects have the same properties. I think that's okay as notions of equality vary (e.g. it could also be an "id" attribute in some apps). However, it would be good if you could pass in a comparison test to intersect().
For posterity: Lodash now has _.differenceBy() which takes a callback to do the comparison; if you're comparing objects you can drop in a function that compares them however you need.
Be careful if the order of arguments reversed, it will not work. eg. _.difference( [5, 2, 10], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]); can not get the diff
J
Jo Liss

Plain JavaScript

There are two possible intepretations for "difference". I'll let you choose which one you want. Say you have:

var a1 = ['a', 'b'     ];
var a2 = [     'b', 'c'];

If you want to get ['a'], use this function: function difference(a1, a2) { var result = []; for (var i = 0; i < a1.length; i++) { if (a2.indexOf(a1[i]) === -1) { result.push(a1[i]); } } return result; } If you want to get ['a', 'c'] (all elements contained in either a1 or a2, but not both -- the so-called symmetric difference), use this function: function symmetricDifference(a1, a2) { var result = []; for (var i = 0; i < a1.length; i++) { if (a2.indexOf(a1[i]) === -1) { result.push(a1[i]); } } for (i = 0; i < a2.length; i++) { if (a1.indexOf(a2[i]) === -1) { result.push(a2[i]); } } return result; }

Lodash / Underscore

If you are using lodash, you can use _.difference(a1, a2) (case 1 above) or _.xor(a1, a2) (case 2).

If you are using Underscore.js, you can use the _.difference(a1, a2) function for case 1.

ES6 Set, for very large arrays

The code above works on all browsers. However, for large arrays of more than about 10,000 items, it becomes quite slow, because it has O(n²) complexity. On many modern browsers, we can take advantage of the ES6 Set object to speed things up. Lodash automatically uses Set when it's available. If you are not using lodash, use the following implementation, inspired by Axel Rauschmayer's blog post:

function difference(a1, a2) {
  var a2Set = new Set(a2);
  return a1.filter(function(x) { return !a2Set.has(x); });
}

function symmetricDifference(a1, a2) {
  return difference(a1, a2).concat(difference(a2, a1));
}

Notes

The behavior for all examples may be surprising or non-obvious if you care about -0, +0, NaN or sparse arrays. (For most uses, this doesn't matter.)


Thank. you saved my day. I had to compare a 300K arrays, and your "Set" solution worked perfectly. This should be the accepted answer.
The fact that I had to scroll all the way down to this answer before someone detailed using a Set to solve this problem is amazing.
i
ifelse.codes

A cleaner approach in ES6 is the following solution.

var a1 = ['a', 'b'];
var a2 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd'];

Difference

a2.filter(d => !a1.includes(d)) // gives ["c", "d"]

Intersection

a2.filter(d => a1.includes(d)) // gives ["a", "b"]

Disjunctive Union (Symmetric Difference)

[ ...a2.filter(d => !a1.includes(d)),
  ...a1.filter(d => !a2.includes(d)) ]

It works only in one direction. Now imagine that a1 = ['a', 'b', 'e'] : e won't be extracted.
yes, that's how the difference in set theory works. (a2 -a1) what you are looking for is (a2-a1) + (a1-a2)
@imrok I believe this is what you are looking for [...a2.filter(d => !a1.includes(d)) , ...(a1.filter(d => !a2.includes(d)))]
L
Luca Borrione

To get the symmetric difference you need to compare the arrays in both ways (or in all the ways in case of multiple arrays)

https://i.stack.imgur.com/FID24.png

ES7 (ECMAScript 2016)

// diff between just two arrays:
function arrayDiff(a, b) {
    return [
        ...a.filter(x => !b.includes(x)),
        ...b.filter(x => !a.includes(x))
    ];
}

// diff between multiple arrays:
function arrayDiff(...arrays) {
    return [].concat(...arrays.map( (arr, i) => {
        const others = arrays.slice(0);
        others.splice(i, 1);
        const unique = [...new Set([].concat(...others))];
        return arr.filter(x => !unique.includes(x));
    }));
}

ES6 (ECMAScript 2015)

// diff between just two arrays:
function arrayDiff(a, b) {
    return [
        ...a.filter(x => b.indexOf(x) === -1),
        ...b.filter(x => a.indexOf(x) === -1)
    ];
}

// diff between multiple arrays:
function arrayDiff(...arrays) {
    return [].concat(...arrays.map( (arr, i) => {
        const others = arrays.slice(0);
        others.splice(i, 1);
        const unique = [...new Set([].concat(...others))];
        return arr.filter(x => unique.indexOf(x) === -1);
    }));
}

ES5 (ECMAScript 5.1)

// diff between just two arrays:
function arrayDiff(a, b) {
    var arrays = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments);
    var diff = [];

    arrays.forEach(function(arr, i) {
        var other = i === 1 ? a : b;
        arr.forEach(function(x) {
            if (other.indexOf(x) === -1) {
                diff.push(x);
            }
        });
    })

    return diff;
}

// diff between multiple arrays:
function arrayDiff() {
    var arrays = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments);
    var diff = [];

    arrays.forEach(function(arr, i) {
        var others = arrays.slice(0);
        others.splice(i, 1);
        var otherValues = Array.prototype.concat.apply([], others);
        var unique = otherValues.filter(function (x, j) { 
            return otherValues.indexOf(x) === j; 
        });
        diff = diff.concat(arr.filter(x => unique.indexOf(x) === -1));
    });
    return diff;
}

Example:

// diff between two arrays:
const a = ['a', 'd', 'e'];
const b = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd'];
arrayDiff(a, b); // (3) ["e", "b", "c"]

// diff between multiple arrays
const a = ['b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'g'];
const b = ['a', 'b'];
const c = ['a', 'e', 'f'];
arrayDiff(a, b, c); // (4) ["c", "d", "g", "f"]

Difference between Arrays of Objects

function arrayDiffByKey(key, ...arrays) {
    return [].concat(...arrays.map( (arr, i) => {
        const others = arrays.slice(0);
        others.splice(i, 1);
        const unique = [...new Set([].concat(...others))];
        return arr.filter( x =>
            !unique.some(y => x[key] === y[key])
        );
    }));
}

Example:

const a = [{k:1}, {k:2}, {k:3}];
const b = [{k:1}, {k:4}, {k:5}, {k:6}];
const c = [{k:3}, {k:5}, {k:7}];
arrayDiffByKey('k', a, b, c); // (4) [{k:2}, {k:4}, {k:6}, {k:7}]

S
Samuel Carrijo

You could use a Set in this case. It is optimized for this kind of operation (union, intersection, difference).

Make sure it applies to your case, once it allows no duplicates.

var a = new JS.Set([1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]);
var b = new JS.Set([2,4,6,8]);

a.difference(b)
// -> Set{1,3,5,7,9}

That looks like a nice library! What a shame that you can't download just the Set function without having to get everything else...
@Blixt I believe you can download it all, and just include just the set.js file
Set is implemented in google closure as well. closure-library.googlecode.com/svn/docs/…
@Loupax Unfortunately the built-in ES Set doesn't have this handy difference method.
p
pdbrito
function diff(a1, a2) {
  return a1.concat(a2).filter(function(val, index, arr){
    return arr.indexOf(val) === arr.lastIndexOf(val);
  });
}

Merge both the arrays, unique values will appear only once so indexOf() will be the same as lastIndexOf().


I agree this is the cleanest and simplest way and nice that it doesn't require touching prototype. “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” ― Albert Einstein
M
Magne

With the arrival of ES6 with sets and splat operator (at the time of being works only in Firefox, check compatibility table), you can write the following one liner:

var a = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd'];
var b = ['a', 'b'];
var b1 = new Set(b);
var difference = [...new Set(a.filter(x => !b1.has(x)))];

which will result in [ "c", "d" ].


Just curious how is that any different than doing b.filter(x => !a.indexOf(x)))
@chovy it is different in time complexity. My solution is O(n + m) your solution is O(n * m) where n and m are lengths of arrays. Take long lists and my solution will run in seconds, while yours will take hours.
What about comparing an attribute of a list of objects? Is that possible using this solution?
a.filter(x => !b1.has(x)) is simpler. And note the spec only requires the complexity to be n * f(m) + m with f(m) sublinear on average. It's better than n * m, but not necessarily n + m.
@SalvadorDali var difference = [...new Set([...a].filter(x => !b1.has(x)))]; Why are you creating duplicate 'a' array? Why are you turning result of filter into a set and then back into array? Isn't this equivalent to var difference = a.filter(x => !b1.has(x));
n
nkitku

One Liners

const unique = (a) => [...new Set(a)]; const uniqueBy = (x,f)=>Object.values(x.reduce((a,b)=>((a[f(b)]=b),a),{})); const intersection = (a, b) => a.filter((v) => b.includes(v)); const diff = (a, b) => a.filter((v) => !b.includes(v)); const symDiff = (a, b) => diff(a, b).concat(diff(b, a)); const union = (a, b) => diff(a, b).concat(b); const a = unique([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5]); console.log(a); const b = [4, 5, 6, 7, 8]; console.log(intersection(a, b), diff(a, b), symDiff(a, b), union(a, b)); console.log(uniqueBy( [ { id: 1, name: "abc" }, { id: 2, name: "xyz" }, { id: 1, name: "abc" }, ], (v) => v.id )); const intersectionBy = (a, b, f) => a.filter((v) => b.some((u) => f(v, u))); console.log(intersectionBy( [ { id: 1, name: "abc" }, { id: 2, name: "xyz" }, ], [ { id: 1, name: "abc" }, { id: 3, name: "pqr" }, ], (v, u) => v.id === u.id )); const diffBy = (a, b, f) => a.filter((v) => !b.some((u) => f(v, u))); console.log(diffBy( [ { id: 1, name: "abc" }, { id: 2, name: "xyz" }, ], [ { id: 1, name: "abc" }, { id: 3, name: "pqr" }, ], (v, u) => v.id === u.id ));

TypeScript

playground link

const unique = <T>(array: T[]) => [...new Set(array)];


const intersection = <T>(array1: T[], array2: T[]) =>
  array1.filter((v) => array2.includes(v));


const diff = <T>(array1: T[], array2: T[]) =>
  array1.filter((v) => !array2.includes(v));


const symDiff = <T>(array1: T[], array2: T[]) =>
  diff(array1, array2).concat(diff(array2, array1));


const union = <T>(array1: T[], array2: T[]) =>
  diff(array1, array2).concat(array2);


const intersectionBy = <T>(
  array1: T[],
  array2: T[],
  predicate: (array1Value: T, array2Value: T) => boolean
) => array1.filter((v) => array2.some((u) => predicate(v, u)));


const diffBy = <T>(
  array1: T[],
  array2: T[],
  predicate: (array1Value: T, array2Value: T) => boolean
) => array1.filter((v) => !array2.some((u) => predicate(v, u)));


const uniqueBy = <T>(
  array: T[],
  predicate: (v: T, i: number, a: T[]) => string
) =>
  Object.values(
    array.reduce((acc, value, index) => {
      acc[predicate(value, index, array)] = value;
      return acc;
    }, {} as { [key: string]: T })
  );

Anyone have the TS version of uniqueBy?
@rantao it's ready
A
Al___

to subtract one array from another, simply use the snippet below:

var a1 = ['1','2','3','4','6'];
var a2 = ['3','4','5'];

var items = new Array();

items = jQuery.grep(a1,function (item) {
    return jQuery.inArray(item, a2) < 0;
});

It will returns ['1,'2','6'] that are items of first array which don't exist in the second.

Therefore, according to your problem sample, following code is the exact solution:

var array1 = ["test1", "test2","test3", "test4"];
var array2 = ["test1", "test2","test3","test4", "test5", "test6"];

var _array = new Array();

_array = jQuery.grep(array2, function (item) {
     return jQuery.inArray(item, array1) < 0;
});

I
Iurii Golskyi

Another way to solve the problem

function diffArray(arr1, arr2) {
    return arr1.concat(arr2).filter(function (val) {
        if (!(arr1.includes(val) && arr2.includes(val)))
            return val;
    });
}

diffArray([1, 2, 3, 7], [3, 2, 1, 4, 5]);    // return [7, 4, 5]

Also, you can use arrow function syntax:

const diffArray = (arr1, arr2) => arr1.concat(arr2)
    .filter(val => !(arr1.includes(val) && arr2.includes(val)));

diffArray([1, 2, 3, 7], [3, 2, 1, 4, 5]);    // return [7, 4, 5]

佚名

Functional approach with ES2015

Computing the difference between two arrays is one of the Set operations. The term already indicates that the native Set type should be used, in order to increase the lookup speed. Anyway, there are three permutations when you compute the difference between two sets:

[+left difference] [-intersection] [-right difference]
[-left difference] [-intersection] [+right difference]
[+left difference] [-intersection] [+right difference]

Here is a functional solution that reflects these permutations.

Left difference:

// small, reusable auxiliary functions const apply = f => x => f(x); const flip = f => y => x => f(x) (y); const createSet = xs => new Set(xs); const filter = f => xs => xs.filter(apply(f)); // left difference const differencel = xs => ys => { const zs = createSet(ys); return filter(x => zs.has(x) ? false : true ) (xs); }; // mock data const xs = [1,2,2,3,4,5]; const ys = [0,1,2,3,3,3,6,7,8,9]; // run the computation console.log( differencel(xs) (ys) );

Right difference:

differencer is trivial. It is just differencel with flipped arguments. You can write a function for convenience: const differencer = flip(differencel). That's all!

Symmetric difference:

Now that we have the left and right one, implementing the symmetric difference gets trivial as well:

// small, reusable auxiliary functions const apply = f => x => f(x); const flip = f => y => x => f(x) (y); const concat = y => xs => xs.concat(y); const createSet = xs => new Set(xs); const filter = f => xs => xs.filter(apply(f)); // left difference const differencel = xs => ys => { const zs = createSet(ys); return filter(x => zs.has(x) ? false : true ) (xs); }; // symmetric difference const difference = ys => xs => concat(differencel(xs) (ys)) (flip(differencel) (xs) (ys)); // mock data const xs = [1,2,2,3,4,5]; const ys = [0,1,2,3,3,3,6,7,8,9]; // run the computation console.log( difference(xs) (ys) );

I guess this example is a good starting point to obtain an impression what functional programming means:

Programming with building blocks that can be plugged together in many different ways.


m
maerics

A solution using indexOf() will be ok for small arrays but as they grow in length the performance of the algorithm approaches O(n^2). Here's a solution that will perform better for very large arrays by using objects as associative arrays to store the array entries as keys; it also eliminates duplicate entries automatically but only works with string values (or values which can be safely stored as strings):

function arrayDiff(a1, a2) {
  var o1={}, o2={}, diff=[], i, len, k;
  for (i=0, len=a1.length; i<len; i++) { o1[a1[i]] = true; }
  for (i=0, len=a2.length; i<len; i++) { o2[a2[i]] = true; }
  for (k in o1) { if (!(k in o2)) { diff.push(k); } }
  for (k in o2) { if (!(k in o1)) { diff.push(k); } }
  return diff;
}

var a1 = ['a', 'b'];
var a2 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd'];
arrayDiff(a1, a2); // => ['c', 'd']
arrayDiff(a2, a1); // => ['c', 'd']

You want to use Object.hasOwnProperty() whenever you're doing a "for in" on an object. Otherwise you run the risk of looping through every field added to the prototype of the default Object. (Or just your object's parent) Also you only need two loops, one for a hash table creation, and the other looks up on that hash table.
@jholloman I respectfully disagree. Now that we can control enumerability for any property, presumably you should be including any property that you get during enumeration.
@Phrogz A good point if you are only worried about modern browsers. Unfortunately I have to support back to IE7 at work so stone age is my default train of thought and we don't tend to use shims.
r
rationalboss

The above answer by Joshaven Potter is great. But it returns elements in array B that are not in array C, but not the other way around. For example, if var a=[1,2,3,4,5,6].diff( [3,4,5,7]); then it will output: ==> [1,2,6], but not [1,2,6,7], which is the actual difference between the two. You can still use Potter's code above but simply redo the comparison once backwards too:

Array.prototype.diff = function(a) {
    return this.filter(function(i) {return !(a.indexOf(i) > -1);});
};

////////////////////  
// Examples  
////////////////////

var a=[1,2,3,4,5,6].diff( [3,4,5,7]);
var b=[3,4,5,7].diff([1,2,3,4,5,6]);
var c=a.concat(b);
console.log(c);

This should output: [ 1, 2, 6, 7 ]


Y
Yash Thakkar

Very Simple Solution with the filter function of JavaScript:

var a1 = ['a', 'b']; var a2 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd']; function diffArray(arr1, arr2) { var newArr = []; var myArr = arr1.concat(arr2); newArr = myArr.filter(function(item){ return arr2.indexOf(item) < 0 || arr1.indexOf(item) < 0; }); alert(newArr); } diffArray(a1, a2);


R
Riyas TK
Array.prototype.difference = function(e) {
    return this.filter(function(i) {return e.indexOf(i) < 0;});
};

eg:- 

[1,2,3,4,5,6,7].difference( [3,4,5] );  
 => [1, 2, 6 , 7]

You should never extend a native object this way. If the standard introduces difference as function in a future version and this function then has a different function signature then yours, it will break your code or foreign libraries that use this function.
C
Cat

How about this:

Array.prototype.contains = function(needle){
  for (var i=0; i<this.length; i++)
    if (this[i] == needle) return true;

  return false;
} 

Array.prototype.diff = function(compare) {
    return this.filter(function(elem) {return !compare.contains(elem);})
}

var a = new Array(1,4,7, 9);
var b = new Array(4, 8, 7);
alert(a.diff(b));

So this way you can do array1.diff(array2) to get their difference (Horrible time complexity for the algorithm though - O(array1.length x array2.length) I believe)


Using the filter option is a great idea... however, you don't need to create a contains method for Array. I converted your idea into a one liner... Thanks for the inspiration!
You don't need to define the contains() function. JS includes() does the same thing.
S
Stan D
function diffArray(arr1, arr2) {
  var newArr = arr1.concat(arr2);
  return newArr.filter(function(i){
    return newArr.indexOf(i) == newArr.lastIndexOf(i);
  });
}

this is works for me


P
Phrogz

Using http://phrogz.net/JS/ArraySetMath.js you can:

var array1 = ["test1", "test2","test3", "test4"];
var array2 = ["test1", "test2","test3","test4", "test5", "test6"];

var array3 = array2.subtract( array1 );
// ["test5", "test6"]

var array4 = array1.exclusion( array2 );
// ["test5", "test6"]

T
Trevor

Pure JavaScript solution (no libraries)

Compatible with older browsers (doesn't use filter)

O(n^2)

Optional fn callback parameter that lets you specify how to compare array items

function diff(a, b, fn){ var max = Math.max(a.length, b.length); d = []; fn = typeof fn === 'function' ? fn : false for(var i=0; i < max; i++){ var ac = i < a.length ? a[i] : undefined bc = i < b.length ? b[i] : undefined; for(var k=0; k < max; k++){ ac = ac === undefined || (k < b.length && (fn ? fn(ac, b[k]) : ac == b[k])) ? undefined : ac; bc = bc === undefined || (k < a.length && (fn ? fn(bc, a[k]) : bc == a[k])) ? undefined : bc; if(ac == undefined && bc == undefined) break; } ac !== undefined && d.push(ac); bc !== undefined && d.push(bc); } return d; } alert( "Test 1: " + diff( [1, 2, 3, 4], [1, 4, 5, 6, 7] ).join(', ') + "\nTest 2: " + diff( [{id:'a',toString:function(){return this.id}},{id:'b',toString:function(){return this.id}},{id:'c',toString:function(){return this.id}},{id:'d',toString:function(){return this.id}}], [{id:'a',toString:function(){return this.id}},{id:'e',toString:function(){return this.id}},{id:'f',toString:function(){return this.id}},{id:'d',toString:function(){return this.id}}], function(a, b){ return a.id == b.id; } ).join(', ') );


You can cache length values to squeeze some more speed. I wanted to recommend accessing array elements without checking for length, but apparently that simple check yields almost 100x speedup.
No reason to cache length values. It's already plain property. jsperf.com/array-length-caching
K
KJ Sudarshan

To find the difference of 2 arrays without duplicates:

function difference(arr1, arr2){

  let setA = new Set(arr1);
  let differenceSet = new Set(arr2.filter(ele => !setA.has(ele)));
  return [...differenceSet ];

}

1.difference([2,2,3,4],[2,3,3,4]) will return []

2.difference([1,2,3],[4,5,6]) will return [4,5,6]

3.difference([1,2,3,4],[1,2]) will return []

4.difference([1,2],[1,2,3,4]) will return [3,4]

Note: The above solution requires that you always send the larger array as the second parameter. To find the absolute difference, you will need to first find the larger array of the two and then work on them.

To find the absolute difference of 2 arrays without duplicates:

function absDifference(arr1, arr2){

  const {larger, smaller} = arr1.length > arr2.length ? 
  {larger: arr1, smaller: arr2} : {larger: arr2, smaller: arr1}
  
  let setA = new Set(smaller);
  let absDifferenceSet = new Set(larger.filter(ele => !setA.has(ele)));
  return [...absDifferenceSet ];

}

1.absDifference([2,2,3,4],[2,3,3,4]) will return []

2.absDifference([1,2,3],[4,5,6]) will return [4,5,6]

3.absDifference([1,2,3,4],[1,2]) will return [3,4]

4.absDifference([1,2],[1,2,3,4]) will return [3,4]

Note the example 3 from both the solutions


V
Vikas Gupta

If you have two list of objects

const people = [{name: 'cesar', age: 23}]
const morePeople = [{name: 'cesar', age: 23}, {name: 'kevin', age: 26}, {name: 'pedro', age: 25}]

let result2 = morePeople.filter(person => people.every(person2 => !person2.name.includes(person.name)))

This is a great answer. I upvote this. Most of the time you will be working with arrays that contain objects..... This helped me today. Thank you Vikas
I
Ian Grainger

I wanted a similar function which took in an old array and a new array and gave me an array of added items and an array of removed items, and I wanted it to be efficient (so no .contains!).

You can play with my proposed solution here: http://jsbin.com/osewu3/12.

Can anyone see any problems/improvements to that algorithm? Thanks!

Code listing:

function diff(o, n) {
  // deal with empty lists
  if (o == undefined) o = [];
  if (n == undefined) n = [];

  // sort both arrays (or this won't work)
  o.sort(); n.sort();

  // don't compare if either list is empty
  if (o.length == 0 || n.length == 0) return {added: n, removed: o};

  // declare temporary variables
  var op = 0; var np = 0;
  var a = []; var r = [];

  // compare arrays and add to add or remove lists
  while (op < o.length && np < n.length) {
      if (o[op] < n[np]) {
          // push to diff?
          r.push(o[op]);
          op++;
      }
      else if (o[op] > n[np]) {
          // push to diff?
          a.push(n[np]);
          np++;
      }
      else {
          op++;np++;
      }
  }

  // add remaining items
  if( np < n.length )
    a = a.concat(n.slice(np, n.length));
  if( op < o.length )
    r = r.concat(o.slice(op, o.length));

  return {added: a, removed: r}; 
}

Thank you very much, your code helped me a lot! @Ian Grainger
@DanyMartinez_ NP! Man, this is old, now. Seeing var all over makes me feel a bit 🤮
lol @Ian Grainger Surely the experience you have now exceeds your own expectations of those yesterdays....
S
Sebastien

You can use underscore.js : http://underscorejs.org/#intersection

You have needed methods for array :

_.difference([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [5, 2, 10]);
=> [1, 3, 4]

_.intersection([1, 2, 3], [101, 2, 1, 10], [2, 1]);
=> [1, 2]

g
ggglni

This is working: basically merge the two arrays, look for the duplicates and push what is not duplicated into a new array which is the difference.

function diff(arr1, arr2) { var newArr = []; var arr = arr1.concat(arr2); for (var i in arr){ var f = arr[i]; var t = 0; for (j=0; j


c
copremesis

//es6 approach

function diff(a, b) {
  var u = a.slice(); //dup the array
  b.map(e => {
    if (u.indexOf(e) > -1) delete u[u.indexOf(e)]
    else u.push(e)   //add non existing item to temp array
  })
  return u.filter((x) => {return (x != null)}) //flatten result
}

D
Dodgie

Symmetric and linear complexity. Requires ES6.

function arrDiff(arr1, arr2) {
    var arrays = [arr1, arr2].sort((a, b) => a.length - b.length);
    var smallSet = new Set(arrays[0]);

    return arrays[1].filter(x => !smallSet.has(x));
}