使用Array.prototype.filter和Array.prototype.includes的组合:

const filteredArray = array1.filter(value => array2.includes(value));

对于较旧的浏览器，使用Array.prototype.indexOf且不使用箭头函数:

var filteredArray = array1.filter(function(n) {
    return array2.indexOf(n) !== -1;
});

NB !.includes和. indexof都在内部使用===来比较数组中的元素，所以如果数组包含对象，它只比较对象引用(而不是对象的内容)。如果你想指定自己的比较逻辑，请使用Array.prototype.some。

如果你的数组是排序的，这应该运行在O(n)，其中n是min(a.length, b.length)

function intersect_1d( a, b ){
    var out=[], ai=0, bi=0, acurr, bcurr, last=Number.MIN_SAFE_INTEGER;
    while( ( acurr=a[ai] )!==undefined && ( bcurr=b[bi] )!==undefined ){
        if( acurr < bcurr){
            if( last===acurr ){
                out.push( acurr );
            }
            last=acurr;
            ai++;
        }
        else if( acurr > bcurr){
            if( last===bcurr ){
                out.push( bcurr );
            }
            last=bcurr;
            bi++;
        }
        else {
            out.push( acurr );
            last=acurr;
            ai++;
            bi++;
        }
    }
    return out;
}

通过使用.pop而不是.shift可以提高@atk实现对原语排序数组的性能。

function intersect(array1, array2) {
   var result = [];
   // Don't destroy the original arrays
   var a = array1.slice(0);
   var b = array2.slice(0);
   var aLast = a.length - 1;
   var bLast = b.length - 1;
   while (aLast >= 0 && bLast >= 0) {
      if (a[aLast] > b[bLast] ) {
         a.pop();
         aLast--;
      } else if (a[aLast] < b[bLast] ){
         b.pop();
         bLast--;
      } else /* they're equal */ {
         result.push(a.pop());
         b.pop();
         aLast--;
         bLast--;
      }
   }
   return result;
}

我使用jsPerf创建了一个基准测试。使用。pop要快三倍。

“filter”和“indexOf”在IE中的Array上不支持。这个怎么样:

var array1 = [1, 2, 3];
var array2 = [2, 3, 4, 5];

var intersection = [];
for (i in array1) {
    for (j in array2) {
        if (array1[i] == array2[j]) intersection.push(array1[i]);
    }
}

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

//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