这是一个提议的标准:对于当前阶段2的提议https://github.com/tc39/proposal-set-methods，您可以使用

mySet.intersection(mySet2);

在此之前，你可以使用Immutable.js的Set，它激发了这个提议

Immutable.Set(mySet).intersect(mySet2)

下面是一个使用可选的比较函数处理多个数组的简单实现:

函数交叉(数组，compareFn = (val1, val2) => (val1 == val2)) { 如果数组。长度< 2)返回数组[0]?［］ Const array1 = arrays[0] const array2 =交集(arrays.slice(1)， compareFn) array1返回。过滤器(val1 =>数组2。if (val2 => compareFn(val1, val2))) ｝ console.log(十字路口([[1,2,3],[2、3、4、5]])) console.log(十字路口([[{id: 1}, {id: 2}], [{id: 1}, {id: 3}]], (val1, val2) => val1。Id === val2.id)

我会用对我来说最有效的方法来贡献:

if (!Array.prototype.intersect){
Array.prototype.intersect = function (arr1) {

    var r = [], o = {}, l = this.length, i, v;
    for (i = 0; i < l; i++) {
        o[this[i]] = true;
    }
    l = arr1.length;
    for (i = 0; i < l; i++) {
        v = arr1[i];
        if (v in o) {
            r.push(v);
        }
    }
    return r;
};
}

function intersectionOfArrays(arr1, arr2) {
    return arr1.filter((element) => arr2.indexOf(element) !== -1).filter((element, pos, self) => self.indexOf(element) == pos);
}

破坏性似乎是最简单的，特别是如果我们可以假设输入是排序的:

/* destructively finds the intersection of 
 * two arrays in a simple fashion.  
 *
 * PARAMS
 *  a - first array, must already be sorted
 *  b - second array, must already be sorted
 *
 * NOTES
 *  State of input arrays is undefined when
 *  the function returns.  They should be 
 *  (prolly) be dumped.
 *
 *  Should have O(n) operations, where n is 
 *    n = MIN(a.length, b.length)
 */
function intersection_destructive(a, b)
{
  var result = [];
  while( a.length > 0 && b.length > 0 )
  {  
     if      (a[0] < b[0] ){ a.shift(); }
     else if (a[0] > b[0] ){ b.shift(); }
     else /* they're equal */
     {
       result.push(a.shift());
       b.shift();
     }
  }

  return result;
}

非破坏性的要稍微复杂一点，因为我们要跟踪指标:

/* finds the intersection of 
 * two arrays in a simple fashion.  
 *
 * PARAMS
 *  a - first array, must already be sorted
 *  b - second array, must already be sorted
 *
 * NOTES
 *
 *  Should have O(n) operations, where n is 
 *    n = MIN(a.length(), b.length())
 */
function intersect_safe(a, b)
{
  var ai=0, bi=0;
  var result = [];

  while( ai < a.length && bi < b.length )
  {
     if      (a[ai] < b[bi] ){ ai++; }
     else if (a[ai] > b[bi] ){ bi++; }
     else /* they're equal */
     {
       result.push(a[ai]);
       ai++;
       bi++;
     }
  }

  return result;
}

//在线性时间内返回数组a中也在b中的元素: 函数相交(a, b) { 返回a.filter (Set.prototype。new Set(b)); ｝ / /例如: console.log(相交([1,2,3],[2、3、4、5]));

我推荐上述简洁的解决方案，它在大输入上优于其他实现。如果在小输入上的性能很重要，请检查下面的替代方案。

备选方案和性能比较:

有关替代实现，请参阅下面的代码片段，并检查https://jsperf.com/array-intersection-comparison以进行性能比较。

function intersect_for(a, b) { const result = []; const alen = a.length; const blen = b.length; for (let i = 0; i < alen; ++i) { const ai = a[i]; for (let j = 0; j < blen; ++j) { if (ai === b[j]) { result.push(ai); break; } } } return result; } function intersect_filter_indexOf(a, b) { return a.filter(el => b.indexOf(el) !== -1); } function intersect_filter_in(a, b) { const map = b.reduce((map, el) => {map[el] = true; return map}, {}); return a.filter(el => el in map); } function intersect_for_in(a, b) { const result = []; const map = {}; for (let i = 0, length = b.length; i < length; ++i) { map[b[i]] = true; } for (let i = 0, length = a.length; i < length; ++i) { if (a[i] in map) result.push(a[i]); } return result; } function intersect_filter_includes(a, b) { return a.filter(el => b.includes(el)); } function intersect_filter_has_this(a, b) { return a.filter(Set.prototype.has, new Set(b)); } function intersect_filter_has_arrow(a, b) { const set = new Set(b); return a.filter(el => set.has(el)); } function intersect_for_has(a, b) { const result = []; const set = new Set(b); for (let i = 0, length = a.length; i < length; ++i) { if (set.has(a[i])) result.push(a[i]); } return result; }

Firefox 53的结果:

Ops/sec on large arrays (10,000 elements): filter + has (this) 523 (this answer) for + has 482 for-loop + in 279 filter + in 242 for-loops 24 filter + includes 14 filter + indexOf 10 Ops/sec on small arrays (100 elements): for-loop + in 384,426 filter + in 192,066 for-loops 159,137 filter + includes 104,068 filter + indexOf 71,598 filter + has (this) 43,531 (this answer) filter + has (arrow function) 35,588