我使用地图甚至对象可以使用。

//find intersection of 2 arrs
const intersections = (arr1,arr2) => {
  let arrf = arr1.concat(arr2)
  let map = new Map();
  let union = [];
  for(let i=0; i<arrf.length; i++){
    if(map.get(arrf[i])){
      map.set(arrf[i],false);
    }else{
      map.set(arrf[i],true);
    }
  }
 map.forEach((v,k)=>{if(!v){union.push(k);}})
 return union;
}

如果只使用关联数组呢?

function intersect(a, b) {
    var d1 = {};
    var d2 = {};
    var results = [];
    for (var i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
        d1[a[i]] = true;
    }
    for (var j = 0; j < b.length; j++) {
        d2[b[j]] = true;
    }
    for (var k in d1) {
        if (d2[k]) 
            results.push(k);
    }
    return results;
}

编辑:

// new version
function intersect(a, b) {
    var d = {};
    var results = [];
    for (var i = 0; i < b.length; i++) {
        d[b[i]] = true;
    }
    for (var j = 0; j < a.length; j++) {
        if (d[a[j]]) 
            results.push(a[j]);
    }
    return results;
}

//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

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;
}

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。

使用一个数组创建一个Object，并循环遍历第二个数组以检查该值是否作为key存在。

function intersection(arr1, arr2) {
  var myObj = {};
  var myArr = [];
  for (var i = 0, len = arr1.length; i < len; i += 1) {
    if(myObj[arr1[i]]) {
      myObj[arr1[i]] += 1; 
    } else {
      myObj[arr1[i]] = 1;
    }
  }
  for (var j = 0, len = arr2.length; j < len; j += 1) {
    if(myObj[arr2[j]] && myArr.indexOf(arr2[j]) === -1) {
      myArr.push(arr2[j]);
    }
  }
  return myArr;
}