29

I need help with creating a function to return the elements that are only present in one of 3 arrays, for example

let arr1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'a', 'b']
let arr2 = ['a', 'd', 'b', 'c']
let arr3 = ['f', 'c', 'a']

In the three arrays above, 'd' and 'f' are found only in one of the arrays (arr2 and arr3), I need to return them.

['d','f']

The arrays can be of different sizes and the returned elements must not be duplicated.

I tried to find better alternatives, but I failed and just went with the brute force approach, looping through each array and checking if the element exists in the other two arrays, but obviously, it's really slow and hard to read.

function elementsInOnlyOneArr(a1, a2, a3) {

  let myArr = [];

  for(let el of a1){
    if(a2.includes(el) == false && a3.includes(el) == false && myArr.includes(el) == false){
      myArr.push(el);
    }
  }

  for(let el of a2){
    if(a1.includes(el) == false && a3.includes(el) == false && myArr.includes(el) == false){
      myArr.push(el);
    }
  }

  for(let el of a3){
    if(a2.includes(el) == false && a1.includes(el) == false && myArr.includes(el) == false){
      myArr.push(el);
    }
  }


  return myArr;
}
Chris Schaller
  • 13,704
  • 3
  • 43
  • 81
kilex
  • 405
  • 3
  • 7

10 Answers10

25

Assuming there are less than 32 arrays, you can do this efficiently with bitmaps. Basically, build an index key -> number where the number has the Nth bit set if the key is in the Nth array. Finally return keys whose numbers only have a single bit set (=are powers of two):

function difference(...arrays) {
    let items = {}

    for (let [n, a] of arrays.entries())
        for (let x of a) {
            items[x] = (items[x] ?? 0) | (1 << n)
        }

    return Object.keys(items).filter(x => 
        Number.isInteger(Math.log2(items[x])))
}


let arr1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'a', 'b', 'z', 'z', 'z']
let arr2 = ['a', 'd', 'b', 'c']
let arr3 = ['f', 'c', 'a']

console.log(difference(arr1, arr2, arr3))

(As noted in the comments x & (x-1) === 0 would be more idiomatic to check whether x is a power of two. See How does the formula x & (x - 1) works? for explanations.)

Here's a more general approach that doesn't limit the number of arrays and doesn't require keys to be strings:

function difference(...arrays) {
  let items = new Map

  for (let [n, a] of arrays.entries())
    for (let x of a) {
      if (!items.has(x))
        items.set(x, new Set)
      items.get(x).add(n)
    }

  let result = []

  for (let [x, ns] of items)
    if (ns.size === 1)
      result.push(x)

  return result
}

let arr1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'a', 'b', 'z', 'z', 'z']
let arr2 = ['a', 'd', 'b', 'c']
let arr3 = ['f', 'c', 'a']

console.log(difference(arr1, arr2, arr3))
gog
  • 10,367
  • 2
  • 24
  • 38
  • 6
    "(x & (x-1)) == 0" will test for powers of 2 without using log or isInteger. – ralphmerridew Dec 12 '22 at 00:39
  • 7
    Why would you implement it this way rather than just mapping keys to counters and returning keys that have a count of just 1? This answer seems needlessly complex. – Overv Dec 12 '22 at 13:25
  • @Overv: edited the examples to make the point clear. – gog Dec 12 '22 at 13:33
  • @ScottSauyet: looks like it already works with these examples. – gog Dec 12 '22 at 15:03
  • Sorry, confusion in my prior comments. I had wrapped the input elements in a single array as with some of the other answers. This handles my concern just fine: http://link.fourwindssoft.com/74. Many answers here get this wrong. A very interesting approach! – Scott Sauyet Dec 12 '22 at 15:24
10

EDIT: Misunderstood OP and it's not an intersect, but extracting values that are unique (e.g. NOT the intersection) between the individual arrays, for that this might work:

let arr1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'a', 'b'];
let arr2 = ['a', 'd', 'b', 'c'];
let arr3 = ['f', 'c', 'a'];

const thereCanOnlyBeOne = function(...arrs) {
    return Array.from(
        arrs.reduce((map, arr) => {
            new Set(arr).forEach((v) => map.set(v, map.has(v) ? map.get(v)+1 : 1));
            return map;
        }, new Map())
    )
    .filter(([value, count]) => count === 1)
    .map(([value, count]) => value);
};

console.log(thereCanOnlyBeOne(arr1, arr2, arr3));

I would think @gog's answer is way more sophisticated and probably much faster, but i have a slightly hard time wrapping my head around it (call me stupid, i take it =D, EDIT: had to do some research, read/learn something about bitsets here and here), so here's the breakdown of the slightly convoluted way of doing this with a Map and array methods:

  1. pass all arrays to be analyzed into function, order doesn't matter
  2. Loop (i chose reduce, but any loop structure works) trough all input arrays and their values, counting up occurrences in the Map, at the end the Map will look as follows:
0: {"a" => 4}
1: {"b" => 3}
2: {"c" => 3}
3: {"d" => 1}
4: {"f" => 1}
  1. Once done with that, we convert the Map back into an array via Array.from() creating an array of tuples:
[
   ["a", 4],
   ["b", 3],
   ["c", 3],
   ["d", 1],
   ["f", 1],
]
  1. Filter that resulting array of tuples (now in the form of [<value>, <count>] to only be left with values that exactly occurred once, leaving us with:
[
   ["d", 1],
   ["f", 1],
]
  1. Map over the filtered array to "dumb" it down into a one-dimensional array again and return the result:
["d", "f"]

WARNING: Internally this code does a ****load of loops, so call it a brute-force loop as well, it just looks "shorter" due to "sexy" ES6 array-syntax-sugar.

A slightly modified version for completeness as the Array.filter() step can be omitted (although it seems to be faster) by iterating the counter-Map once it's finalized and simply deleting Map-entries that do not have value 1.

let arr1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'a', 'b'];
let arr2 = ['a', 'd', 'b', 'c'];
let arr3 = ['f', 'c', 'a'];

const thereCanOnlyBeOne = function(...arrs) {
    let result;
    
    arrs
    .reduce((map, arr) => {
        new Set(arr).forEach((v) => map.set(v, map.has(v) ? map.get(v)+1 : 1));
        
        return map;
    }, new Map())
    // the result of .reduce will be a Map!
    .forEach((value, key, map) => { value !== 1 && map.delete(key); result = map; });
    
    return Array.from(result).map(([value, count]) => value);
};

console.log(thereCanOnlyBeOne(arr1, arr2, arr3));

UPDATE: as @Nick Parsons pointed out, the previous version of the code would not output elements that were only present in one array, but multiple times.

This will produce an incorrect output if one array contains the same value multiple times and that element isn't present in any other arrays. eg, if you remove b from arr2, then only arr1 has b in it but no others do, so it should b should be included in the final result.

This can easily be solved by turning the array that is checked into a Set() (thereby reducing the arrays values to "unique" ones).

If anyone (besides me) wonders, here's a benchmark between gog's options and mine, his bitset approach is clearly the fastest, so if you are comparing less than 32 arrays, that's the most performant solution by far: https://jsben.ch/YkKSu

and if anyone prefers an ES6-ified version of gog's bitset implementation (improved by @ralphmerridew suggestion), here you go:

let arr1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'a', 'b'];
let arr2 = ['a', 'd', 'b', 'c'];
let arr3 = ['f', 'c', 'a'];

function onlyone(...arrays) {
    return Object.entries(
        arrays.reduce((map, arr, n) => {
            arr.forEach((v) => map[v] = (map[v] ?? 0) | (1 << n));
            return map;
        }, {})
    )
    .filter(([value, bitmap]) => (bitmap & (bitmap-1)) == 0)
    .map(([value, bitmap]) => value);
};

console.log(onlyone(arr1, arr2, arr3));

updated the benchmark with this as well, interestingly (or unexpectedly) this "slower"-looking ES6 implementation somehow beats gog's for-loop implementation by a tad, tested in chrome and firefox multiple times, as i couldn't believe it myself, thought those syntax-sugar methods slow things down slightly compared to for loops, well...good to know =)

I also tried implementing the bitset approach with BigInt() to eliminate the issue with it only being able to deal with 32 arrays (depending on the Engine with BigInt it should be possible to deal with 1 million to 1 billion arrays), unfortunately that seems to make it the slowest of all solutions (benchmark updated):

let arr1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'a', 'b'];
let arr2 = ['a', 'd', 'b', 'c'];
let arr3 = ['f', 'c', 'a'];

function onlyoneBigInt(...arrays) {
    return Object.entries(
        arrays.reduce((map, arr, n) => {
            arr.forEach((v) => map[v] = (map[v] ?? 0n) | (1n << BigInt(n)));
            return map;
        }, {})
    )
    .filter(([value, bitmap]) => (bitmap & (bitmap-1n)) == 0)
    .map(([value, bitmap]) => value);
};

console.log(onlyoneBigInt(arr1, arr2, arr3));

Maybe someone sees something that can be improved to make this faster?

exside
  • 3,736
  • 1
  • 12
  • 19
  • This will remove items if they appear multiple times in the one array, (eg: `let arr3 = ['c', 'a', 'f', 'x', 'x']`), `x` should be kept based on OPs explanation because it only appears in `arr3` and not the others. – Nick Parsons Dec 11 '22 at 00:41
  • Oh, then just remove the new Set() which does the "unique" filtering, let me update – exside Dec 11 '22 at 00:42
  • hm, re-read OP's post 10 times, and now i'm unsure if i understood it right =)... maybe it's not an intersect at all... – exside Dec 11 '22 at 00:47
  • Yeah, I don't think it is. Based on reading what they've said and the code they've provided, they're after keeping the elements that appear in only one array. If it's repeated within that one array it should still be kept, but in the output it should only appear once. – Nick Parsons Dec 11 '22 at 00:49
  • 2
    Might be better if this answer used the same input as the question. Apples : apples. – Tibrogargan Dec 11 '22 at 00:49
  • You're right @Tibrogargan, fixed – exside Dec 11 '22 at 01:57
  • Only first one appears to give the right results. – Mark Schultheiss Dec 11 '22 at 01:58
  • yes, that's the point of the edit =)... i misunderstood what OP wants, added a working approach but kept the original answer, might be helpful to someone, no? or you think i should delete it? – exside Dec 11 '22 at 02:00
  • @exside I'd remove it, union, distinct, except and intersect all have pretty standard implementations, it doesn't add anything to this question and pretty much pollutes your answer. Keep it focused and concise to make it a better answer. – Chris Schaller Dec 11 '22 at 02:15
  • yeah, you're probably right! Done in 10s! – exside Dec 11 '22 at 02:21
  • This will produce an incorrect output if one array contains the same value multiple times and that element isn't present in any other arrays. eg, if you remove `b` from `arr2`, then only `arr1` has `b` in it but no others do, so it should `b` should be included in the final result. – Nick Parsons Dec 11 '22 at 07:25
  • I was writing up a similar answer to this, but it also used an array in addition to the count to work out which array the value came from, eg: `b: {count: 2, seen: [true, true, false]}` means that `b` was seen in `arr1` and `arr2`, but no `arr3`. When updating the `count` you can check if the value has already been seen in the current array to determine if it should be incremented or not. I decided not to post that though since gog's answer does the same thing essentially, just with binary and in a much more efficient way. – Nick Parsons Dec 11 '22 at 07:27
  • 2
    gonna look into it, thx for bringing it to attention! this is trickier than i thought =) – exside Dec 11 '22 at 16:51
6

This is really just Set operations. The method single below finds any entry in a test array that does not appear in the other arrays in the collection. Deliberately implementing this so you can test individual arrays since it's not clear in the question if you need to return the letters, or the arrays.

let arr1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'a', 'b']
let arr2 = ['a', 'd', 'b', 'c']
let arr3 = ['f', 'c', 'a']

// The set of arrays
let arrays = [ arr1, arr2, arr3 ]

// Finds any entries in the test array that doesn't appear in the arrays that aren't the test arrays
let singles = (test) => {
  // others is the Set of all value in the other arrays
  others = arrays.reduce( ( accum, elem ) => {
    if (elem != test) { elem.forEach(accum.add, accum) }
    return accum
  }, new Set())
  // find anything in the test array that the others do not have
  return [...new Set(test.filter( value => ! others.has(value) ))]
}

// collect results from testing all arrays
result = []
for(const array of arrays) { result.push(...singles(array))
}
console.log(result)

Borrowing the parameter construction from @gog's excellent answer, you could also define it so that it takes a test array and an arbitrary collection of arrays to test against:

    let singles = (test, ...arrays) => {
      // others is the Set of all value in the other arrays
      others = arrays.reduce( ( accum, elem ) => {
        if (elem != test) { elem.forEach(accum.add, accum) }
        return accum
      }, new Set())
      // find anything in the test array that the others do not have
      return [...new Set(test.filter( value => ! others.has(value) ))]
    }

    console.log(singles(arr2, arr1, arr2, arr3))

The advantage here is that this should work with any number of arrays, while gog's answer is probably faster for a collection of less than 32 arrays (or technically any number if you were willing to extend it using BigInt, but that may lose some of the speed)

Tibrogargan
  • 4,508
  • 3
  • 19
  • 38
  • If you add an `'f'` to the end of `arr3`, the result would be `['d', 'f', 'f']`, which I'm pretty sure is not the desired result. – Scott Sauyet Dec 12 '22 at 15:03
  • 1
    @ScottSauyet good catch, fixed - but trending towards "hard to read" now which counter to requirements. – Tibrogargan Dec 12 '22 at 20:37
5

A fairly simple approach:

const inOnlyOne = (
  xss, 
  keys = [... new Set (xss .flat ())], 
  uniques = xss .map (xs => new Set (xs))
) => keys .filter (k => uniques .filter (f => f .has (k)) .length == 1)

console .log (inOnlyOne ([['a', 'b', 'c', 'a', 'b'], ['a', 'd', 'b', 'c'], ['f', 'c', 'a']]))

We find the list of unique keys by flattening our array of arrays and turning that into a Set and then back into an array, convert the arrays into Sets, then filter the keys to find only those where the number of sets including that key has exactly one entry.

There is a little inefficiency here in that we check all the Sets when seeing if a number is in there. It would be easy enough to modify it to check only until we find a second Set, but the code would be more complex. I would only bother to do so if I found that this simple version was not performant enough for my needs.

One advantage of this approach is that it works for other data types than strings and numbers:

const a = {a: 1}, b = {b: 3}, c = {c: 3}, d = {d: 4}, e = {e: 5}, f = {f: 6}

inOnlyOne ([[a, b, c, a, b], [a, d, b, c], [f, c, a]])

//=> [{d: 4}, {f: 6}]

Of course that only helps if your items are shared references. If you wanted to use value equality rather than reference equality, it would be significantly more complex.

If we wanted to pass the arrays individually, rather than wrap them in a common array, this variant should work:

const inOnlyOne = (...xss) => ((
  keys = [... new Set (xss .flat ())], 
  uniques = xss .map (xs => new Set (xs))
) => keys .filter (k => uniques .filter (f => f .has (k)) .length == 1)
) ()
Scott Sauyet
  • 49,207
  • 4
  • 49
  • 103
  • 1
    I'm just curious: what language(s) affected your code style such that you put a space before a method name? ...and that you do "calculations" in the param list? – Niccolo M. Dec 13 '22 at 06:16
  • 1
    The spacing is just a way to add some focus to the methods themselves. It's quirky, but I find it more readable. No language influenced it. The parameters are a poor man's version of true `let`-bindings from more FP languages. It allows me to program more with expressions than statements and removes some notions of timing and sequencing from code. – Scott Sauyet Dec 13 '22 at 12:09
4

This is a brute force iterator much like your own, but reduces the number of re-entries by removing items from the array:

function elementsInOnlyOneArr(...arrays) {

  // de-dup and sort so we process the longest array first
  let sortedArrays = arrays.map(ar => [...new Set(ar)]).sort((a,b) => b.length - a.length);
  
  for (let ai1 = 0 ; ai1 < sortedArrays.length; ai1 ++) {
    for(let i = sortedArrays[ai1].length - 1; i >= 0; i --){
      let exists = false;
      let val = sortedArrays[ai1][i];   
      for(let ai2 = ai1 + 1 ; ai2 < sortedArrays.length ; ai2 ++) {
        let foundIndex = sortedArrays[ai2].indexOf(val);
        if (foundIndex >= 0) {
          exists = true;
          sortedArrays[ai2].splice(foundIndex,1);
          // do not break, check for match in the other arrays
        }
      }
      // if there was a match in any of the other arrays, remove it from the first one too!
      if (exists)
        sortedArrays[ai1].splice(i,1);
    }
  }
  // concat the remaining elements, they are all unique
  let output = sortedArrays[0];
  for(let i = 1; i < sortedArrays.length; i ++)
    output = output.concat(sortedArrays[i]);
    
  return output;
}

let arr1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'a', 'b']
let arr2 = ['a', 'd', 'b', 'c']
let arr3 = ['f', 'c', 'a']
console.log(elementsInOnlyOneArr(arr1,arr2,arr3));

See this fiddle: https://jsfiddle.net/4deq7xwm/
Updated - Use splice() instead of pop()

Chris Schaller
  • 13,704
  • 3
  • 43
  • 81
  • This returns `['a', 'f']` instead of the presumably correct `['d', 'f']`. I haven't dug through the implementation to see why. – Scott Sauyet Dec 12 '22 at 14:57
  • 1
    Thanks @ScottSauyet All sorted out now. I was using `pop` instead of `splice` to remove the item at a specific index... – Chris Schaller Dec 20 '22 at 12:59
4

The Array.prototype.includes() method seems like the way to go here.

let arr1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'a', 'b']
let arr2 = ['a', 'd', 'b', 'c']
let arr3 = ['f', 'c', 'a', 'f']
var arrays = [arr1,arr2,arr3];
const items = arr1.concat(arr2, arr3);
let results = [];

items.forEach(isInOneArray);

function isInOneArray(item){
  let found = 0;
  for (const arr of arrays){
    if (arr.includes(item)){
      found ++;
    }
  }
  if (found===1 && !results.includes(item)){
    results.push(item);
  }
}
console.log(results);
Ronnie Royston
  • 16,778
  • 6
  • 77
  • 91
3

Create a collection of pairs (x,y) where x is an element (in your case, a string) and y identifies the array it comes from. Sort this in O(log n) time by x first (where n is the total number of items over all arrays). It is easy to iterate over the result and detect the desired items.

Hagen von Eitzen
  • 2,109
  • 21
  • 25
3

This is easily solved with the built-in .lastIndexOf() Array method:

const arr1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'a', 'b'];
const arr2 = ['a', 'd', 'b', 'c'];
const arr3 = ['f', 'c', 'a'];

function getValuesInOneArray(...arrays) {
  const combinedArr = arrays.flat();
  const result = [];

  for (const value of combinedArr) {
    if (combinedArr.indexOf(value) === combinedArr.lastIndexOf(value)) {
      result.push(value);
    }
  }

  return result;
}

getValuesInOneArray(arr1, arr2, arr3); // ['d', 'f']

I generally try to avoid "ninja code" for the benefit of maintainability and readability, but I couldn't resist rewriting the above getValuesInOneArray() function as a slicker arrow function.

const getValuesInOneArray = (...arrays) =>
  arrays
    .flat()
    .filter(
      (value, index, array) => array.indexOf(value) === array.lastIndexOf(value)
    );

You can read more about "ninja code" (and why you should avoid it) here, on Javacript.info, but I recommend avoiding practices like this in production codebases.

Hope this helps.

damonholden
  • 1,062
  • 4
  • 17
2
function elementsInOnlyOneArr(arr1, arr2, arr3){
    let arr = arr1.concat(arr2).concat(arr3);
    return removeDuplicate(arr);
 }

 function removeDuplicate(arr){
   for(each of arr){
    let count = 0;
    for(ch of arr){
        if(each === ch){
            count++;
            if(count > 1){
                //removing element that exist more than one 
                arr = arr.filter(item => item !== each);
                return removeDuplicate(arr);
            }
        }
    }
  }
    return arr;
 }

 let arr1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'a', 'b'];
 let arr2 = ['a', 'd', 'b', 'c'];
 let arr3 = ['f', 'c', 'a'];
 console.log(elementsInOnlyOneArr(arr1, arr2, arr3));
-1

Do a diff of each of the array and concat those to get the unique values only in any one of the arrays.

const arr1 = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'a', 'b'];
const arr2 = ['a', 'd', 'b', 'c'];
const arr3 = ['f', 'c', 'a'];

function diff(a1, a2, a3) {
  let u1 = a1.filter(el => { return !a2.includes(el) })
  .filter(el => { return !a3.includes(el) });
  let u2 = a2.filter(el => { return !a1.includes(el) })
   .filter(el => { return !a3.includes(el) });
   let u3 = a3.filter(el => { return !a2.includes(el) })
   .filter(el => { return !a1.includes(el) });
  return u1.concat(u2).concat(u3);
}
/* diff them */
const adiff = diff(arr1, arr2, arr3);
console.log(adiff);
Mark Schultheiss
  • 32,614
  • 12
  • 69
  • 100