603
votes

I have a target array ["apple","banana","orange"], and I want to check if other arrays contain any one of the target array elements.

For example:

["apple","grape"] //returns true;

["apple","banana","pineapple"] //returns true;

["grape", "pineapple"] //returns false;

How can I do it in JavaScript?

29
Use a for loop and iterate over the target array. If every element is contained within the current array (use current.indexOf(elem) !== -1), then they're all in there.Blender
@LeonGaban I disagree. I wouldn't import a library just to perform this operation.devpato
@devpato yeah changed my mind, the ES6 solution is my favLeon Gaban
What about arr1.some(el1 => arr2.includes(el1)); ?Walaszka
Still waiting 7 years later for Alex to pick an answerKartik Chugh

29 Answers

841
votes

Vanilla JS

ES2016:

const found = arr1.some(r=> arr2.includes(r))

ES6:

const found = arr1.some(r=> arr2.indexOf(r) >= 0)

How it works

some(..) checks each element of the array against a test function and returns true if any element of the array passes the test function, otherwise, it returns false. indexOf(..) >= 0 and includes(..) both return true if the given argument is present in the array.

284
votes

vanilla js

/**
 * @description determine if an array contains one or more items from another array.
 * @param {array} haystack the array to search.
 * @param {array} arr the array providing items to check for in the haystack.
 * @return {boolean} true|false if haystack contains at least one item from arr.
 */
var findOne = function (haystack, arr) {
    return arr.some(function (v) {
        return haystack.indexOf(v) >= 0;
    });
};

As noted by @loganfsmyth you can shorten it in ES2016 to

/**
 * @description determine if an array contains one or more items from another array.
 * @param {array} haystack the array to search.
 * @param {array} arr the array providing items to check for in the haystack.
 * @return {boolean} true|false if haystack contains at least one item from arr.
 */
var findOne = (haystack, arr) => {
    return arr.some(v => haystack.includes(v));
};

or simply as arr.some(v => haystack.includes(v));

If you want to determine if the array has all the items from the other array, replace some() to every() or as arr.every(v => haystack.includes(v));

91
votes

ES6 solution:

let arr1 = [1, 2, 3];
let arr2 = [2, 3];

let isFounded = arr1.some( ai => arr2.includes(ai) );

Unlike of it: Must contains all values.

let allFounded = arr2.every( ai => arr1.includes(ai) );

Hope, will be helpful.

76
votes

If you're not opposed to using a libray, http://underscorejs.org/ has an intersection method, which can simplify this:

var _ = require('underscore');

var target = [ 'apple', 'orange', 'banana'];
var fruit2 = [ 'apple', 'orange', 'mango'];
var fruit3 = [ 'mango', 'lemon', 'pineapple'];
var fruit4 = [ 'orange', 'lemon', 'grapes'];

console.log(_.intersection(target, fruit2)); //returns [apple, orange]
console.log(_.intersection(target, fruit3)); //returns []
console.log(_.intersection(target, fruit4)); //returns [orange]

The intersection function will return a new array with the items that it matched and if not matches it returns empty array.

65
votes

ES6 (fastest)

const a = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
const b = ['c', 'a', 'd'];
a.some(v=> b.indexOf(v) !== -1)

ES2016

const a = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
const b = ['c', 'a', 'd'];
a.some(v => b.includes(v));

Underscore

const a = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
const b = ['c', 'a', 'd'];
_.intersection(a, b)

DEMO: https://jsfiddle.net/r257wuv5/

jsPerf: https://jsperf.com/array-contains-any-element-of-another-array

48
votes

If you don't need type coercion (because of the use of indexOf), you could try something like the following:

var arr = [1, 2, 3];
var check = [3, 4];

var found = false;
for (var i = 0; i < check.length; i++) {
    if (arr.indexOf(check[i]) > -1) {
        found = true;
        break;
    }
}
console.log(found);

Where arr contains the target items. At the end, found will show if the second array had at least one match against the target.

Of course, you can swap out numbers for anything you want to use - strings are fine, like your example.

And in my specific example, the result should be true because the second array's 3 exists in the target.


UPDATE:

Here's how I'd organize it into a function (with some minor changes from before):

var anyMatchInArray = (function () {
    "use strict";

    var targetArray, func;

    targetArray = ["apple", "banana", "orange"];
    func = function (checkerArray) {
        var found = false;
        for (var i = 0, j = checkerArray.length; !found && i < j; i++) {
            if (targetArray.indexOf(checkerArray[i]) > -1) {
                found = true;
            }
        }
        return found;
    };

    return func;
}());

DEMO: http://jsfiddle.net/u8Bzt/

In this case, the function could be modified to have targetArray be passed in as an argument instead of hardcoded in the closure.


UPDATE2:

While my solution above may work and be (hopefully more) readable, I believe the "better" way to handle the concept I described is to do something a little differently. The "problem" with the above solution is that the indexOf inside the loop causes the target array to be looped over completely for every item in the other array. This can easily be "fixed" by using a "lookup" (a map...a JavaScript object literal). This allows two simple loops, over each array. Here's an example:

var anyMatchInArray = function (target, toMatch) {
    "use strict";

    var found, targetMap, i, j, cur;

    found = false;
    targetMap = {};

    // Put all values in the `target` array into a map, where
    //  the keys are the values from the array
    for (i = 0, j = target.length; i < j; i++) {
        cur = target[i];
        targetMap[cur] = true;
    }

    // Loop over all items in the `toMatch` array and see if any of
    //  their values are in the map from before
    for (i = 0, j = toMatch.length; !found && (i < j); i++) {
        cur = toMatch[i];
        found = !!targetMap[cur];
        // If found, `targetMap[cur]` will return true, otherwise it
        //  will return `undefined`...that's what the `!!` is for
    }

    return found;
};

DEMO: http://jsfiddle.net/5Lv9v/

The downside to this solution is that only numbers and strings (and booleans) can be used (correctly), because the values are (implicitly) converted to strings and set as the keys to the lookup map. This isn't exactly good/possible/easily done for non-literal values.

34
votes

Using filter/indexOf:

function containsAny(source,target)
{
    var result = source.filter(function(item){ return target.indexOf(item) > -1});   
    return (result.length > 0);  
}    


//results

var fruits = ["apple","banana","orange"];


console.log(containsAny(fruits,["apple","grape"]));

console.log(containsAny(fruits,["apple","banana","pineapple"]));

console.log(containsAny(fruits,["grape", "pineapple"]));
30
votes

You could use lodash and do:

_.intersection(originalTarget, arrayToCheck).length > 0

Set intersection is done on both collections producing an array of identical elements.

30
votes
const areCommonElements = (arr1, arr2) => {
    const arr2Set = new Set(arr2);
    return arr1.some(el => arr2Set.has(el));
};

Or you can even have a better performance if you first find out which of these two arrays is longer and making Set out for the longest array, while applying some method on the shortest one:

const areCommonElements = (arr1, arr2) => {
    const [shortArr, longArr] = (arr1.length < arr2.length) ? [arr1, arr2] : [arr2, arr1];
    const longArrSet = new Set(longArr);
    return shortArr.some(el => longArrSet.has(el));
};
21
votes

I wrote 3 solutions. Essentially they do the same. They return true as soon as they get true. I wrote the 3 solutions just for showing 3 different way to do things. Now, it depends what you like more. You can use performance.now() to check the performance of one solution or the other. In my solutions I'm also checking which array is the biggest and which one is the smallest to make the operations more efficient.

The 3rd solution may not be the cutest but is efficient. I decided to add it because in some coding interviews you are not allowed to use built-in methods.

Lastly, sure...we can come up with a solution with 2 NESTED for loops (the brute force way) but you want to avoid that because the time complexity is bad O(n^2).

Note:

instead of using .includes() like some other people did, you can use .indexOf(). if you do just check if the value is bigger than 0. If the value doesn't exist will give you -1. if it does exist, it will give you greater than 0.

indexOf() vs includes()

Which one has better performance? indexOf() for a little bit, but includes is more readable in my opinion.

If I'm not mistaken .includes() and indexOf() use loops behind the scene, so you will be at O(n^2) when using them with .some().

USING loop

 const compareArraysWithIncludes = (arr1, arr2) => {
     const [smallArray, bigArray] =
        arr1.length < arr2.length ? [arr1, arr2] : [arr2, arr1];

     for (let i = 0; i < smallArray.length; i++) {
       return bigArray.includes(smallArray[i]);
     }

      return false;
    };

USING .some()

const compareArraysWithSome = (arr1, arr2) => {
  const [smallArray, bigArray] =
    arr1.length < arr2.length ? [arr1, arr2] : [arr2, arr1];
  return smallArray.some(c => bigArray.includes(c));
};

USING MAPS Time complexity O(2n)=>O(n)

const compararArraysUsingObjs = (arr1, arr2) => {
  const map = {};

  const [smallArray, bigArray] =
    arr1.length < arr2.length ? [arr1, arr2] : [arr2, arr1];

  for (let i = 0; i < smallArray.length; i++) {
    if (!map[smallArray[i]]) {
      map[smallArray[i]] = true;
    }
  }

  for (let i = 0; i < bigArray.length; i++) {
    if (map[bigArray[i]]) {
      return true;
    }
  }

  return false;
};

Code in my: stackblitz

I'm not an expert in performance nor BigO so if something that I said is wrong let me know.

9
votes

I found this short and sweet syntax to match all or some elements between two arrays. For example

// OR operation. find if any of array2 elements exists in array1. This will return as soon as there is a first match as some method breaks when function returns TRUE

let array1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e'], array2 = ['a', 'b'];

console.log(array2.some(ele => array1.includes(ele)));

// prints TRUE

// AND operation. find if all of array2 elements exists in array1. This will return as soon as there is a no first match as some method breaks when function returns TRUE

let array1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e'], array2 = ['a', 'x'];

console.log(!array2.some(ele => !array1.includes(ele)));

// prints FALSE

Hope that helps someone in future!

7
votes

You can use a nested Array.prototype.some call. This has the benefit that it will bail at the first match instead of other solutions that will run through the full nested loop.

eg.

var arr = [1, 2, 3];
var match = [2, 4];

var hasMatch = arr.some(a => match.some(m => a === m));
7
votes

Just one more solution

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

Check if a1 contain all element of a2

var result = a1.filter(e => a2.indexOf(e) !== -1).length === a2.length
console.log(result)
6
votes

What about using a combination of some/findIndex and indexOf?

So something like this:

var array1 = ["apple","banana","orange"];
var array2 = ["grape", "pineapple"];

var found = array1.some(function(v) { return array2.indexOf(v) != -1; });

To make it more readable you could add this functionality to the Array object itself.

Array.prototype.indexOfAny = function (array) {
    return this.findIndex(function(v) { return array.indexOf(v) != -1; });
}

Array.prototype.containsAny = function (array) {
    return this.indexOfAny(array) != -1;
}

Note: If you'd want to do something with a predicate you could replace the inner indexOf with another findIndex and a predicate

5
votes

Here is an interesting case I thought I should share.

Let's say that you have an array of objects and an array of selected filters.

let arr = [
  { id: 'x', tags: ['foo'] },
  { id: 'y', tags: ['foo', 'bar'] },
  { id: 'z', tags: ['baz'] }
];

const filters = ['foo'];

To apply the selected filters to this structure we can

if (filters.length > 0)
  arr = arr.filter(obj =>
    obj.tags.some(tag => filters.includes(tag))
  );

// [
//   { id: 'x', tags: ['foo'] },
//   { id: 'y', tags: ['foo', 'bar'] }
// ]
4
votes

My solution applies Array.prototype.some() and Array.prototype.includes() array helpers which do their job pretty efficient as well

ES6

const originalFruits = ["apple","banana","orange"];

const fruits1 = ["apple","banana","pineapple"];

const fruits2 = ["grape", "pineapple"];

const commonFruits = (myFruitsArr, otherFruitsArr) => {
  return myFruitsArr.some(fruit => otherFruitsArr.includes(fruit))
}
console.log(commonFruits(originalFruits, fruits1)) //returns true;
console.log(commonFruits(originalFruits, fruits2)) //returns false;
3
votes

It can be done by simply iterating across the main array and check whether other array contains any of the target element or not.

Try this:

function Check(A) {
    var myarr = ["apple", "banana", "orange"];
    var i, j;
    var totalmatches = 0;
    for (i = 0; i < myarr.length; i++) {
        for (j = 0; j < A.length; ++j) {
            if (myarr[i] == A[j]) {

                totalmatches++;

            }

        }
    }
    if (totalmatches > 0) {
        return true;
    } else {
        return false;
    }
}
var fruits1 = new Array("apple", "grape");
alert(Check(fruits1));

var fruits2 = new Array("apple", "banana", "pineapple");
alert(Check(fruits2));

var fruits3 = new Array("grape", "pineapple");
alert(Check(fruits3));

DEMO at JSFIDDLE

3
votes

Not sure how efficient this might be in terms of performance, but this is what I use using array destructuring to keep everything nice and short:

const shareElements = (arr1, arr2) => {
  const typeArr = [...arr1, ...arr2]
  const typeSet = new Set(typeArr)
  return typeArr.length > typeSet.size
}

Since sets cannot have duplicate elements while arrays can, combining both input arrays, converting it to a set, and comparing the set size and array length would tell you if they share any elements.

2
votes

With underscorejs

var a1 = [1,2,3];
var a2 = [1,2];

_.every(a1, function(e){ return _.include(a2, e); } ); //=> false
_.every(a2, function(e){ return _.include(a1, e); } ); //=> true
2
votes

Adding to Array Prototype

Disclaimer: Many would strongly advise against this. The only time it'd really be a problem was if a library added a prototype function with the same name (that behaved differently) or something like that.

Code:

Array.prototype.containsAny = function(arr) {
    return this.some(
        (v) => (arr.indexOf(v) >= 0)
    )
}

Without using big arrow functions:

Array.prototype.containsAny = function(arr) {
    return this.some(function (v) {
        return arr.indexOf(v) >= 0
    })
}

Usage

var a = ["a","b"]

console.log(a.containsAny(["b","z"]))    // Outputs true

console.log(a.containsAny(["z"]))    // Outputs false
2
votes

Array .filter() with a nested call to .find() will return all elements in the first array that are members of the second array. Check the length of the returned array to determine if any of the second array were in the first array.

getCommonItems(firstArray, secondArray) {
  return firstArray.filter((firstArrayItem) => {
    return secondArray.find((secondArrayItem) => {
      return firstArrayItem === secondArrayItem;
    });
  });
}
2
votes

Vanilla JS with partial matching & case insensitive

The problem with some previous approaches is that they require an exact match of every word. But, What if you want to provide results for partial matches?

function search(arrayToSearch, wordsToSearch) {
    arrayToSearch.filter(v => 
        wordsToSearch.every(w => 
            v.toLowerCase().split(" ").
                reduce((isIn, h) => isIn || String(h).indexOf(w) >= 0, false)
            )
        )
}
//Usage
var myArray = ["Attach tag", "Attaching tags", "Blah blah blah"];
var searchText = "Tag attach";
var searchArr = searchText.toLowerCase().split(" "); //["tag", "attach"]

var matches = search(myArray, searchArr);
//Will return
//["Attach tag", "Attaching tags"]

This is useful when you want to provide a search box where users type words and the results can have those words in any order, position and case.

2
votes

Update @Paul Grimshaw answer, use includes insteed of indexOf for more readable

let found = arr1.some(r=> arr2.indexOf(r) >= 0)
let found = arr1.some(r=> arr2.includes(r))

2
votes

When I looked at your answers, I could not find the answer I wanted. I did something myself and I want to share this with you.

It will be true only if the words entered (array) are correct.

function contains(a,b) {
    let counter = 0;
    for(var i = 0; i < b.length; i++) {;
        if(a.includes(b[i])) counter++;
    }
    if(counter === b.length) return true;
    return false;
}

let main_array = ['foo','bar','baz'];
let sub_array_a = ['foo','foobar'];
let sub_array_b = ['foo','bar'];

console.log(contains(main_array, sub_array_a)); // returns false
console.log(contains(main_array,sub_array_b )); // returns true
1
votes

I came up with a solution in node using underscore js like this:

var checkRole = _.intersection(['A','B'], ['A','B','C']);
if(!_.isEmpty(checkRole)) { 
     next();
}
0
votes

Personally, I would use the following function:

var arrayContains = function(array, toMatch) {
    var arrayAsString = array.toString();
    return (arrayAsString.indexOf(','+toMatch+',') >-1);
}

The "toString()" method will always use commas to separate the values. Will only really work with primitive types.

0
votes
console.log("searching Array: "+finding_array);
console.log("searching in:"+reference_array);
var check_match_counter = 0;
for (var j = finding_array.length - 1; j >= 0; j--) 
{
    if(reference_array.indexOf(finding_array[j]) > 0)
    {
        check_match_counter = check_match_counter + 1;
    }
}
 var match = (check_match_counter > 0) ? true : false;
console.log("Final result:"+match);
0
votes
var target = ["apple","banana","orange"];
var checkArray = ["apple","banana","pineapple"];

var containsOneCommonItem = target.some(x => checkArray.some(y => y === x));`

["apple","grape"] //returns true;

["apple","banana","pineapple"] //returns true;

["grape", "pineapple"] //returns false;
0
votes

you can do something like this

let filteredArray = array.filter((elm) => {
   for (let i=0; i<anotherAray.length; i++) {
      return elm.includes(anotherArray[i])
    }
  })