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;
}

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

希望这有助于所有版本。

function diffArray(arr1, arr2) {
  var newArr = [];

  var large = arr1.length>=arr2.length?arr1:arr2;
  var small = JSON.stringify(large) == JSON.stringify(arr1)?arr2:arr1;
  for(var i=0;i<large.length;i++){
    var copyExists = false; 
    for(var j =0;j<small.length;j++){
      if(large[i]==small[j]){
        copyExists= true;
        break;
      }
    }
    if(!copyExists)
      {
        newArr.push(large[i]);
      }
  }

  for(var i=0;i<small.length;i++){
    var copyExists = false; 
    for(var j =0;j<large.length;j++){
      if(large[j]==small[i]){
        copyExists= true;
        break;
      }
    }
    if(!copyExists)
      {
        newArr.push(small[i]);
      }
  }


  return newArr;
}

简单性:

// Usage
const intersection = allLists
  .reduce(intersect, allValues)
  .reduce(removeDuplicates, []);


// Implementation
const intersect = (intersection, list) =>
  intersection.filter(item =>
    list.some(x => x === item));

const removeDuplicates = (uniques, item) =>
  uniques.includes(item) ? uniques : uniques.concat(item);


// Example Data
const somePeople = [bob, doug, jill];
const otherPeople = [sarah, bob, jill];
const morePeople = [jack, jill];

const allPeople = [...somePeople, ...otherPeople, ...morePeople];
const allGroups = [somePeople, otherPeople, morePeople];

// Example Usage
const intersection = allGroups
  .reduce(intersect, allPeople)
  .reduce(removeDuplicates, []);

intersection; // [jill]

好处:

泥土简单 以数据为中心的 适用于任意数量的列表 适用于任意长度的列表 适用于任意类型的值 适用于任意排序顺序 保留形状(在任何数组中首次出现的顺序) 尽可能早退出 内存安全，不影响函数/数组原型

缺点:

内存占用率较高 更高的CPU使用率 需要理解reduce 需要理解数据流

你不希望将其用于3D引擎或内核工作，但如果你在基于事件的应用程序中运行时遇到问题，那么你的设计就有更大的问题。

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。

Var数组= [ [1,2,3]， [2,3,4,5] ］ 函数commonValue(…arr) { 令res = arr[0]。过滤(函数(x) { 返回arr.every((y) => y.includes(x)) }) 返回res; ｝ commonValue数组(…);