Timeline for How to merge two arrays in JavaScript and de-duplicate items
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 26, 2018 at 22:06 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jun 27, 2018 at 6:00 | |||||
| Aug 22, 2011 at 18:54 | comment | added | GAgnew | I should note before you try to tell me that 'l = a.length; i < l' is faster because it only does 'one calculation'; that this is not the case. Unlike some other languages, in javascript '.length' is a property on all arrays, not a calculation. | |
| Aug 22, 2011 at 18:47 | comment | added | GAgnew | @meder First of all, why do you make an array of 'non-duplicates' and then concat them to the original array? why not just push the 'non-duplicates' to the original array to begin with. Secondly, why the **** do you have 'l = a.length; i < l' ?? it should be 'i < a.length'. Your causing ridiculous extra lines of execution, to the point where it is just pure wrong. | |
| Aug 19, 2011 at 13:33 | comment | added | GAgnew | This is a good answer, although I am prompted to down-vote simply from the poor code that is shown here. That array.prototype.uniqueMerge function is horrendous, I haven't looked at the rest. | |
| Oct 18, 2009 at 15:12 | comment | added | Amarghosh | It's unfair, this should definitely come on top of the jQuery one, at least. | |
| Oct 18, 2009 at 13:51 | comment | added | meder omuraliev | Can any of you downvoters actually explain why you downvoted? My original solution solved the OP's issue, and my updated code does the same. The selected answer did not initially account for the ordering to which it was fixed later. | |
| Oct 18, 2009 at 11:10 | history | edited | meder omuraliev | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 26 characters in body; added 1 characters in body; added 29 characters in body
|
| Oct 18, 2009 at 11:03 | history | edited | meder omuraliev | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 475 characters in body; added 4 characters in body; deleted 599 characters in body; deleted 23 characters in body
|
| Oct 18, 2009 at 11:00 | comment | added | LiraNuna | @Amarghosh: My solution wasn't posted after the OP's comment about order. | |
| Oct 18, 2009 at 10:18 | comment | added | Amarghosh |
did you find out what does >>> 0 do in there? I can't think of an example where >>> 0 would make any difference.
|
|
| Oct 18, 2009 at 9:40 | history | edited | meder omuraliev | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 234 characters in body; deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Oct 18, 2009 at 9:31 | comment | added | Amarghosh |
@LiraNuna your solution doesn't seem to preserve the order. [a,b,c] and [x,b,d] would give [a,c,x,b,d] instead of [a,b,c,x,d].
|
|
| Oct 18, 2009 at 9:19 | comment | added | Gumbo | @meder: My algorithm is a union algorithm. The union itself is done in O(n+m), but sorting takes at most O(n·log n+m·log m). So the whole algorithm is O(n·log n+m·log m). | |
| Oct 18, 2009 at 8:58 | comment | added | meder omuraliev | What algorithm is your answer? | |
| Oct 18, 2009 at 8:55 | comment | added | Gumbo | Note that this algorithm is O(n^2). | |
| Oct 18, 2009 at 8:50 | comment | added | meder omuraliev | It's not a standard ECMAScript method defined for Array.prototype, though I'm aware you can easily define it for IE and other browsers which don't support it. | |
| Oct 18, 2009 at 8:47 | vote | accept | Vijjendra | ||
| Oct 18, 2009 at 13:26 | |||||
| Oct 18, 2009 at 8:46 | comment | added | Vijjendra | @Mender: if order is not matter then how I do this | |
| Oct 18, 2009 at 8:42 | history | answered | meder omuraliev | CC BY-SA 2.5 |