I have a very simple JavaScript array that may or may not contain duplicates.
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
I need to remove the duplicates and put the unique values in a new array.
I could point to all the codes that I've tried but I think it's useless because they don't work. I accept jQuery solutions too.
Using the Set constructor and the spread syntax:
uniq = [...new Set(array)];
uniqueArray = a.filter(function(item, pos) {
return a.indexOf(item) == pos;
})
Basically, we iterate over the array and, for each element, check if the first position of this element in the array is equal to the current position. Obviously, these two positions are different for duplicate elements.
Using the 3rd ("this array") parameter of the filter callback we can avoid a closure of the array variable:
uniqueArray = a.filter(function(item, pos, self) {
return self.indexOf(item) == pos;
})
Although concise, this algorithm is not particularly efficient for large arrays (quadratic time).
function uniq(a) {
var seen = {};
return a.filter(function(item) {
return seen.hasOwnProperty(item) ? false : (seen[item] = true);
});
}
This is how it's usually done. The idea is to place each element in a hashtable and then check for its presence instantly. This gives us linear time, but has at least two drawbacks:
uniq([1,"1"]) will return just [1]uniq([{foo:1},{foo:2}]) will return just [{foo:1}].That said, if your arrays contain only primitives and you don't care about types (e.g. it's always numbers), this solution is optimal.
A universal solution combines both approaches: it uses hash lookups for primitives and linear search for objects.
function uniq(a) {
var prims = {"boolean":{}, "number":{}, "string":{}}, objs = [];
return a.filter(function(item) {
var type = typeof item;
if(type in prims)
return prims[type].hasOwnProperty(item) ? false : (prims[type][item] = true);
else
return objs.indexOf(item) >= 0 ? false : objs.push(item);
});
}
Another option is to sort the array first, and then remove each element equal to the preceding one:
function uniq(a) {
return a.sort().filter(function(item, pos, ary) {
return !pos || item != ary[pos - 1];
});
}
Again, this doesn't work with objects (because all objects are equal for sort). Additionally, we silently change the original array as a side effect - not good! However, if your input is already sorted, this is the way to go (just remove sort from the above).
Sometimes it's desired to uniquify a list based on some criteria other than just equality, for example, to filter out objects that are different, but share some property. This can be done elegantly by passing a callback. This "key" callback is applied to each element, and elements with equal "keys" are removed. Since key is expected to return a primitive, hash table will work fine here:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
var seen = {};
return a.filter(function(item) {
var k = key(item);
return seen.hasOwnProperty(k) ? false : (seen[k] = true);
})
}
A particularly useful key() is JSON.stringify which will remove objects that are physically different, but "look" the same:
a = [[1,2,3], [4,5,6], [1,2,3]]
b = uniqBy(a, JSON.stringify)
console.log(b) // [[1,2,3], [4,5,6]]
If the key is not primitive, you have to resort to the linear search:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
var index = [];
return a.filter(function (item) {
var k = key(item);
return index.indexOf(k) >= 0 ? false : index.push(k);
});
}
In ES6 you can use a Set:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
let seen = new Set();
return a.filter(item => {
let k = key(item);
return seen.has(k) ? false : seen.add(k);
});
}
or a Map:
function uniqBy(a, key) {
return [
...new Map(
a.map(x => [key(x), x])
).values()
]
}
which both also work with non-primitive keys.
When removing objects by a key, you might to want to keep the first of "equal" objects or the last one.
Use the Set variant above to keep the first, and the Map to keep the last:
function uniqByKeepFirst(a, key) {
let seen = new Set();
return a.filter(item => {
let k = key(item);
return seen.has(k) ? false : seen.add(k);
});
}
function uniqByKeepLast(a, key) {
return [
...new Map(
a.map(x => [key(x), x])
).values()
]
}
//
data = [
{a:1, u:1},
{a:2, u:2},
{a:3, u:3},
{a:4, u:1},
{a:5, u:2},
{a:6, u:3},
];
console.log(uniqByKeepFirst(data, it => it.u))
console.log(uniqByKeepLast(data, it => it.u))Both underscore and Lo-Dash provide uniq methods. Their algorithms are basically similar to the first snippet above and boil down to this:
var result = [];
a.forEach(function(item) {
if(result.indexOf(item) < 0) {
result.push(item);
}
});
This is quadratic, but there are nice additional goodies, like wrapping native indexOf, ability to uniqify by a key (iteratee in their parlance), and optimizations for already sorted arrays.
If you're using jQuery and can't stand anything without a dollar before it, it goes like this:
$.uniqArray = function(a) {
return $.grep(a, function(item, pos) {
return $.inArray(item, a) === pos;
});
}
which is, again, a variation of the first snippet.
Function calls are expensive in JavaScript, therefore the above solutions, as concise as they are, are not particularly efficient. For maximal performance, replace filter with a loop and get rid of other function calls:
function uniq_fast(a) {
var seen = {};
var out = [];
var len = a.length;
var j = 0;
for(var i = 0; i < len; i++) {
var item = a[i];
if(seen[item] !== 1) {
seen[item] = 1;
out[j++] = item;
}
}
return out;
}
This chunk of ugly code does the same as the snippet #3 above, but an order of magnitude faster (as of 2017 it's only twice as fast - JS core folks are doing a great job!)
function uniq(a) {
var seen = {};
return a.filter(function(item) {
return seen.hasOwnProperty(item) ? false : (seen[item] = true);
});
}
function uniq_fast(a) {
var seen = {};
var out = [];
var len = a.length;
var j = 0;
for(var i = 0; i < len; i++) {
var item = a[i];
if(seen[item] !== 1) {
seen[item] = 1;
out[j++] = item;
}
}
return out;
}
/////
var r = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9],
a = [],
LEN = 1000,
LOOPS = 1000;
while(LEN--)
a = a.concat(r);
var d = new Date();
for(var i = 0; i < LOOPS; i++)
uniq(a);
document.write('<br>uniq, ms/loop: ' + (new Date() - d)/LOOPS)
var d = new Date();
for(var i = 0; i < LOOPS; i++)
uniq_fast(a);
document.write('<br>uniq_fast, ms/loop: ' + (new Date() - d)/LOOPS)ES6 provides the Set object, which makes things a whole lot easier:
function uniq(a) {
return Array.from(new Set(a));
}
or
let uniq = a => [...new Set(a)];
Note that, unlike in python, ES6 sets are iterated in insertion order, so this code preserves the order of the original array.
However, if you need an array with unique elements, why not use sets right from the beginning?
A "lazy", generator-based version of uniq can be built on the same basis:
function* uniqIter(a) {
let seen = new Set();
for (let x of a) {
if (!seen.has(x)) {
seen.add(x);
yield x;
}
}
}
// example:
function* randomsBelow(limit) {
while (1)
yield Math.floor(Math.random() * limit);
}
// note that randomsBelow is endless
count = 20;
limit = 30;
for (let r of uniqIter(randomsBelow(limit))) {
console.log(r);
if (--count === 0)
break
}
// exercise for the reader: what happens if we set `limit` less than `count` and whyGot tired of seeing all bad examples with for-loops or jQuery. Javascript has the perfect tools for this nowadays: sort, map and reduce.
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
var uniq = names.reduce(function(a,b){
if (a.indexOf(b) < 0 ) a.push(b);
return a;
},[]);
console.log(uniq, names) // [ 'Mike', 'Matt', 'Nancy', 'Adam', 'Jenny', 'Carl' ]
// one liner
return names.reduce(function(a,b){if(a.indexOf(b)<0)a.push(b);return a;},[]);
There are probably faster ways but this one is pretty decent.
var uniq = names.slice() // slice makes copy of array before sorting it
.sort(function(a,b){
return a > b;
})
.reduce(function(a,b){
if (a.slice(-1)[0] !== b) a.push(b); // slice(-1)[0] means last item in array without removing it (like .pop())
return a;
},[]); // this empty array becomes the starting value for a
// one liner
return names.slice().sort(function(a,b){return a > b}).reduce(function(a,b){if (a.slice(-1)[0] !== b) a.push(b);return a;},[]);
In ES6 you have Sets and Spread which makes it very easy and performant to remove all duplicates:
var uniq = [ ...new Set(names) ]; // [ 'Mike', 'Matt', 'Nancy', 'Adam', 'Jenny', 'Carl' ]
Someone asked about ordering the results based on how many unique names there are:
var names = ['Mike', 'Matt', 'Nancy', 'Adam', 'Jenny', 'Nancy', 'Carl']
var uniq = names
.map((name) => {
return {count: 1, name: name}
})
.reduce((a, b) => {
a[b.name] = (a[b.name] || 0) + b.count
return a
}, {})
var sorted = Object.keys(uniq).sort((a, b) => uniq[a] < uniq[b])
console.log(sorted)
Vanilla JS: Remove duplicates using an Object like a Set
You can always try putting it into an object, and then iterating through its keys:
function remove_duplicates(arr) {
var obj = {};
var ret_arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
obj[arr[i]] = true;
}
for (var key in obj) {
ret_arr.push(key);
}
return ret_arr;
}
Vanilla JS: Remove duplicates by tracking already seen values (order-safe)
Or, for an order-safe version, use an object to store all previously seen values, and check values against it before before adding to an array.
function remove_duplicates_safe(arr) {
var seen = {};
var ret_arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
if (!(arr[i] in seen)) {
ret_arr.push(arr[i]);
seen[arr[i]] = true;
}
}
return ret_arr;
}
ECMAScript 6: Use the new Set data structure (order-safe)
ECMAScript 6 adds the new Set Data-Structure, which lets you store values of any type. Set.values returns elements in insertion order.
function remove_duplicates_es6(arr) {
let s = new Set(arr);
let it = s.values();
return Array.from(it);
}
Example usage:
a = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
b = remove_duplicates(a);
// b:
// ["Adam", "Carl", "Jenny", "Matt", "Mike", "Nancy"]
c = remove_duplicates_safe(a);
// c:
// ["Mike", "Matt", "Nancy", "Adam", "Jenny", "Carl"]
d = remove_duplicates_es6(a);
// d:
// ["Mike", "Matt", "Nancy", "Adam", "Jenny", "Carl"]
It's a library with a host of functions for manipulating arrays.
It's the tie to go along with jQuery's tux, and Backbone.js's suspenders.
_.uniq(array, [isSorted], [iterator])Alias: unique
Produces a duplicate-free version of the array, using === to test object equality. If you know in advance that the array is sorted, passing true for isSorted will run a much faster algorithm. If you want to compute unique items based on a transformation, pass an iterator function.
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
alert(_.uniq(names, false));
Note: Lo-Dash (an underscore competitor) also offers a comparable .uniq implementation.
use
Array.filter()like this
var actualArr = ['Apple', 'Apple', 'Banana', 'Mango', 'Strawberry', 'Banana'];
console.log('Actual Array: ' + actualArr);
var filteredArr = actualArr.filter(function(item, index) {
if (actualArr.indexOf(item) == index)
return item;
});
console.log('Filtered Array: ' + filteredArr);this can be made shorter in ES6 to
actualArr.filter((item,index,self) => self.indexOf(item)==index);
Here is nice explanation of Array.filter()
The most concise way to remove duplicates from an array using native javascript functions is to use a sequence like below:
vals.sort().reduce(function(a, b){ if (b != a[0]) a.unshift(b); return a }, [])
there's no need for slice nor indexOf within the reduce function, like i've seen in other examples! it makes sense to use it along with a filter function though:
vals.filter(function(v, i, a){ return i == a.indexOf(v) })
Yet another ES6(2015) way of doing this that already works on a few browsers is:
Array.from(new Set(vals))
or even using the spread operator:
[...new Set(vals)]
cheers!
The top answers have complexity of O(n²), but this can be done with just O(n) by using an object as a hash:
function getDistinctArray(arr) {
var dups = {};
return arr.filter(function(el) {
var hash = el.valueOf();
var isDup = dups[hash];
dups[hash] = true;
return !isDup;
});
}
This will work for strings, numbers, and dates. If your array contains objects, the above solution won't work because when coerced to a string, they will all have a value of "[object Object]" (or something similar) and that isn't suitable as a lookup value. You can get an O(n) implementation for objects by setting a flag on the object itself:
function getDistinctObjArray(arr) {
var distinctArr = arr.filter(function(el) {
var isDup = el.inArray;
el.inArray = true;
return !isDup;
});
distinctArr.forEach(function(el) {
delete el.inArray;
});
return distinctArr;
}
2019 edit: Modern versions of JavaScript make this a much easier problem to solve. Using Set will work, regardless of whether your array contains objects, strings, numbers, or any other type.
function getDistinctArray(arr) {
return [...new Set(arr)];
}
The implementation is so simple, defining a function is no longer warranted.
Simplest One I've run into so far. In es6.
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl", "Mike", "Nancy"]
var noDupe = Array.from(new Set(names))
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Set
Solution 1
Array.prototype.unique = function() {
var a = [];
for (i = 0; i < this.length; i++) {
var current = this[i];
if (a.indexOf(current) < 0) a.push(current);
}
return a;
}
Solution 2 (using Set)
Array.prototype.unique = function() {
return Array.from(new Set(this));
}
Test
var x=[1,2,3,3,2,1];
x.unique() //[1,2,3]
Performance
When I tested both implementation (with and without Set) for performance in chrome, I found that the one with Set is much much faster!
Array.prototype.unique1 = function() {
var a = [];
for (i = 0; i < this.length; i++) {
var current = this[i];
if (a.indexOf(current) < 0) a.push(current);
}
return a;
}
Array.prototype.unique2 = function() {
return Array.from(new Set(this));
}
var x=[];
for(var i=0;i<10000;i++){
x.push("x"+i);x.push("x"+(i+1));
}
console.time("unique1");
console.log(x.unique1());
console.timeEnd("unique1");
console.time("unique2");
console.log(x.unique2());
console.timeEnd("unique2");In ECMAScript 6 (aka ECMAScript 2015), Set can be used to filter out duplicates. Then it can be converted back to an array using the spread operator.
var names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"],
unique = [...new Set(names)];
I had done a detailed comparison of dupes removal at some other question but having noticed that this is the real place i just wanted to share it here as well.
I believe this is the best way to do this
var myArray = [100, 200, 100, 200, 100, 100, 200, 200, 200, 200],
reduced = Object.keys(myArray.reduce((p,c) => (p[c] = true,p),{}));
console.log(reduced);OK .. even though this one is O(n) and the others are O(n^2) i was curious to see benchmark comparison between this reduce / look up table and filter/indexOf combo (I choose Jeetendras very nice implementation https://stackoverflow.com/a/37441144/4543207). I prepare a 100K item array filled with random positive integers in range 0-9999 and and it removes the duplicates. I repeat the test for 10 times and the average of the results show that they are no match in performance.
Well ok so far so good. But let's do it properly this time in the ES6 style. It looks so cool..! But as of now how it will perform against the powerful lut solution is a mystery to me. Lets first see the code and then benchmark it.
var myArray = [100, 200, 100, 200, 100, 100, 200, 200, 200, 200],
reduced = [...myArray.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()];
console.log(reduced);Wow that was short..! But how about the performance..? It's beautiful... Since the heavy weight of the filter / indexOf lifted over our shoulders now i can test an array 1M random items of positive integers in range 0..99999 to get an average from 10 consecutive tests. I can say this time it's a real match. See the result for yourself :)
var ranar = [],
red1 = a => Object.keys(a.reduce((p,c) => (p[c] = true,p),{})),
red2 = a => reduced = [...a.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()],
avg1 = [],
avg2 = [],
ts = 0,
te = 0,
res1 = [],
res2 = [],
count= 10;
for (var i = 0; i<count; i++){
ranar = (new Array(1000000).fill(true)).map(e => Math.floor(Math.random()*100000));
ts = performance.now();
res1 = red1(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg1.push(te-ts);
ts = performance.now();
res2 = red2(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg2.push(te-ts);
}
avg1 = avg1.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
avg2 = avg2.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
console.log("reduce & lut took: " + avg1 + "msec");
console.log("map & spread took: " + avg2 + "msec");Which one would you use..? Well not so fast...! Don't be deceived. Map is at displacement. Now look... in all of the above cases we fill an array of size n with numbers of range < n. I mean we have an array of size 100 and we fill with random numbers 0..9 so there are definite duplicates and "almost" definitely each number has a duplicate. How about if we fill the array in size 100 with random numbers 0..9999. Let's now see Map playing at home. This time an Array of 100K items but random number range is 0..100M. We will do 100 consecutive tests to average the results. OK let's see the bets..! <- no typo
var ranar = [],
red1 = a => Object.keys(a.reduce((p,c) => (p[c] = true,p),{})),
red2 = a => reduced = [...a.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()],
avg1 = [],
avg2 = [],
ts = 0,
te = 0,
res1 = [],
res2 = [],
count= 100;
for (var i = 0; i<count; i++){
ranar = (new Array(100000).fill(true)).map(e => Math.floor(Math.random()*100000000));
ts = performance.now();
res1 = red1(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg1.push(te-ts);
ts = performance.now();
res2 = red2(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg2.push(te-ts);
}
avg1 = avg1.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
avg2 = avg2.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
console.log("reduce & lut took: " + avg1 + "msec");
console.log("map & spread took: " + avg2 + "msec");Now this is the spectacular comeback of Map()..! May be now you can make a better decision when you want to remove the dupes.
Well ok we are all happy now. But the lead role always comes last with some applause. I am sure some of you wonder what Set object would do. Now that since we are open to ES6 and we know Map is the winner of the previous games let us compare Map with Set as a final. A typical Real Madrid vs Barcelona game this time... or is it? Let's see who will win the el classico :)
var ranar = [],
red1 = a => reduced = [...a.reduce((p,c) => p.set(c,true),new Map()).keys()],
red2 = a => Array.from(new Set(a)),
avg1 = [],
avg2 = [],
ts = 0,
te = 0,
res1 = [],
res2 = [],
count= 100;
for (var i = 0; i<count; i++){
ranar = (new Array(100000).fill(true)).map(e => Math.floor(Math.random()*10000000));
ts = performance.now();
res1 = red1(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg1.push(te-ts);
ts = performance.now();
res2 = red2(ranar);
te = performance.now();
avg2.push(te-ts);
}
avg1 = avg1.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
avg2 = avg2.reduce((p,c) => p+c)/count;
console.log("map & spread took: " + avg1 + "msec");
console.log("set & A.from took: " + avg2 + "msec");Wow.. man..! Well unexpectedly it didn't turn out to be an el classico at all. More like Barcelona FC against CA Osasuna :))
The following is more than 80% faster than the jQuery method listed (see tests below). It is an answer from a similar question a few years ago. If I come across the person who originally proposed it I will post credit. Pure JS.
var temp = {};
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++)
temp[array[i]] = true;
var r = [];
for (var k in temp)
r.push(k);
return r;
My test case comparison: http://jsperf.com/remove-duplicate-array-tests
A simple but effective technique, is to use the filter method in combination with the filter function(value, index){ return this.indexOf(value) == index }.
var data = [2,3,4,5,5,4];
var filter = function(value, index){ return this.indexOf(value) == index };
var filteredData = data.filter(filter, data );
document.body.innerHTML = '<pre>' + JSON.stringify(filteredData, null, '\t') + '</pre>';See also this Fiddle.
Here is very simple for understanding and working anywhere (even in PhotoshopScript) code. Check it!
var peoplenames = new Array("Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl");
peoplenames = unique(peoplenames);
alert(peoplenames);
function unique(array){
var len = array.length;
for(var i = 0; i < len; i++) for(var j = i + 1; j < len; j++)
if(array[j] == array[i]){
array.splice(j,1);
j--;
len--;
}
return array;
}
//*result* peoplenames == ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Carl"]
here is the simple method without any special libraries are special function,
name_list = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"];
get_uniq = name_list.filter(function(val,ind) { return name_list.indexOf(val) == ind; })
console.log("Original name list:"+name_list.length, name_list)
console.log("\n Unique name list:"+get_uniq.length, get_uniq)
Apart from being a simpler, more terse solution than the current answers (minus the future-looking ES6 ones), I perf tested this and it was much faster as well:
var uniqueArray = dupeArray.filter(function(item, i, self){
return self.lastIndexOf(item) == i;
});
One caveat: Array.lastIndexOf() was added in IE9, so if you need to go lower than that, you'll need to look elsewhere.
Here is a generic and strictly functional approach with ES2015:
// small, reusable auxiliary functions
const apply = f => a => f(a);
const flip = f => b => a => f(a) (b);
const uncurry = f => (a, b) => f(a) (b);
const push = x => xs => (xs.push(x), xs);
const foldl = f => acc => xs => xs.reduce(uncurry(f), acc);
const some = f => xs => xs.some(apply(f));
// the actual de-duplicate function
const uniqueBy = f => foldl(
acc => x => some(f(x)) (acc)
? acc
: push(x) (acc)
) ([]);
// comparators
const eq = y => x => x === y;
// string equality case insensitive :D
const seqCI = y => x => x.toLowerCase() === y.toLowerCase();
// mock data
const xs = [1,2,3,1,2,3,4];
const ys = ["a", "b", "c", "A", "B", "C", "D"];
console.log( uniqueBy(eq) (xs) );
console.log( uniqueBy(seqCI) (ys) );We can easily derive unique from unqiueBy or use the faster implementation utilizing Sets:
const unqiue = uniqueBy(eq);
// const unique = xs => Array.from(new Set(xs));
Benefits of this approach:
uniqueBy isn't as fast as an imperative implementation with loops, but it is way more expressive due to its genericity.
If you identify uniqueBy as the cause of a concrete performance penalty in your app, replace it with optimized code. That is, write your code first in an functional, declarative way. Afterwards, provided that you encounter performance issues, try to optimize the code at the locations, which are the cause of the problem.
uniqueBy utilizes mutations (push(x) (acc)) hidden inside its body. It reuses the accumulator instead of throwing it away after each iteration. This reduces memory consumption and GC pressure. Since this side effect is wrapped inside the function, everything outside remains pure.
$(document).ready(function() {
var arr1=["dog","dog","fish","cat","cat","fish","apple","orange"]
var arr2=["cat","fish","mango","apple"]
var uniquevalue=[];
var seconduniquevalue=[];
var finalarray=[];
$.each(arr1,function(key,value){
if($.inArray (value,uniquevalue) === -1)
{
uniquevalue.push(value)
}
});
$.each(arr2,function(key,value){
if($.inArray (value,seconduniquevalue) === -1)
{
seconduniquevalue.push(value)
}
});
$.each(uniquevalue,function(ikey,ivalue){
$.each(seconduniquevalue,function(ukey,uvalue){
if( ivalue == uvalue)
{
finalarray.push(ivalue);
}
});
});
alert(finalarray);
});
The following script returns a new array containing only unique values. It works on string and numbers. No requirement for additional libraries only vanilla JS.
Browser support:
Feature Chrome Firefox (Gecko) Internet Explorer Opera Safari
Basic support (Yes) 1.5 (1.8) 9 (Yes) (Yes)
https://jsfiddle.net/fzmcgcxv/3/
var duplicates = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl","Mike","Mike","Nancy","Carl"];
var unique = duplicates.filter(function(elem, pos) {
return duplicates.indexOf(elem) == pos;
});
alert(unique);
A slight modification of thg435's excellent answer to use a custom comparator:
function contains(array, obj) {
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
if (isEqual(array[i], obj)) return true;
}
return false;
}
//comparator
function isEqual(obj1, obj2) {
if (obj1.name == obj2.name) return true;
return false;
}
function removeDuplicates(ary) {
var arr = [];
return ary.filter(function(x) {
return !contains(arr, x) && arr.push(x);
});
}
Although ES6 Solution is the best, I'm baffled as to how nobody has shown the following solution:
function removeDuplicates(arr){
o={}
arr.forEach(function(e){
o[e]=true
})
return Object.keys(o)
}
The thing to remember here is that objects MUST have unique keys. We are exploiting this to remove all the duplicates. I would have thought this would be the fastest solution (before ES6).
Bear in mind though that this also sorts the array.
_.uniq(peoplenames)solves this lodash.com/docs#uniq – Connor Leechconst names = ["Mike","Matt","Nancy","Adam","Jenny","Nancy","Carl"]; let unique = [...new Set(names)]; console.log(unique); // 'Mike', 'Matt', 'Nancy', 'Adam', 'Jenny', 'Carl'– Asif vora