Related
What is the most concise and efficient way to find out if a JavaScript array contains a value?
This is the only way I know to do it:
function contains(a, obj) {
for (var i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
if (a[i] === obj) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
Is there a better and more concise way to accomplish this?
This is very closely related to Stack Overflow question Best way to find an item in a JavaScript Array? which addresses finding objects in an array using indexOf.
Modern browsers have Array#includes, which does exactly that and is widely supported by everyone except IE:
console.log(['joe', 'jane', 'mary'].includes('jane')); //true
You can also use Array#indexOf, which is less direct, but doesn't require polyfills for outdated browsers.
console.log(['joe', 'jane', 'mary'].indexOf('jane') >= 0); //true
Many frameworks also offer similar methods:
jQuery: $.inArray(value, array, [fromIndex])
Underscore.js: _.contains(array, value) (also aliased as _.include and _.includes)
Dojo Toolkit: dojo.indexOf(array, value, [fromIndex, findLast])
Prototype: array.indexOf(value)
MooTools: array.indexOf(value)
MochiKit: findValue(array, value)
MS Ajax: array.indexOf(value)
Ext: Ext.Array.contains(array, value)
Lodash: _.includes(array, value, [from]) (is _.contains prior 4.0.0)
Ramda: R.includes(value, array)
Notice that some frameworks implement this as a function, while others add the function to the array prototype.
Update from 2019: This answer is from 2008 (11 years old!) and is not relevant for modern JS usage. The promised performance improvement was based on a benchmark done in browsers of that time. It might not be relevant to modern JS execution contexts. If you need an easy solution, look for other answers. If you need the best performance, benchmark for yourself in the relevant execution environments.
As others have said, the iteration through the array is probably the best way, but it has been proven that a decreasing while loop is the fastest way to iterate in JavaScript. So you may want to rewrite your code as follows:
function contains(a, obj) {
var i = a.length;
while (i--) {
if (a[i] === obj) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
Of course, you may as well extend Array prototype:
Array.prototype.contains = function(obj) {
var i = this.length;
while (i--) {
if (this[i] === obj) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
And now you can simply use the following:
alert([1, 2, 3].contains(2)); // => true
alert([1, 2, 3].contains('2')); // => false
indexOf maybe, but it's a "JavaScript extension to the ECMA-262 standard; as such it may not be present in other implementations of the standard."
Example:
[1, 2, 3].indexOf(1) => 0
["foo", "bar", "baz"].indexOf("bar") => 1
[1, 2, 3].indexOf(4) => -1
AFAICS Microsoft does not offer some kind of alternative to this, but you can add similar functionality to arrays in Internet Explorer (and other browsers that don't support indexOf) if you want to, as a quick Google search reveals (for example, this one).
The top answers assume primitive types but if you want to find out if an array contains an object with some trait, Array.prototype.some() is an elegant solution:
const items = [ {a: '1'}, {a: '2'}, {a: '3'} ]
items.some(item => item.a === '3') // returns true
items.some(item => item.a === '4') // returns false
The nice thing about it is that the iteration is aborted once the element is found so unnecessary iteration cycles are spared.
Also, it fits nicely in an if statement since it returns a boolean:
if (items.some(item => item.a === '3')) {
// do something
}
* As jamess pointed out in the comment, at the time of this answer, September 2018, Array.prototype.some() is fully supported: caniuse.com support table
ECMAScript 7 introduces Array.prototype.includes.
It can be used like this:
[1, 2, 3].includes(2); // true
[1, 2, 3].includes(4); // false
It also accepts an optional second argument fromIndex:
[1, 2, 3].includes(3, 3); // false
[1, 2, 3].includes(3, -1); // true
Unlike indexOf, which uses Strict Equality Comparison, includes compares using SameValueZero equality algorithm. That means that you can detect if an array includes a NaN:
[1, 2, NaN].includes(NaN); // true
Also unlike indexOf, includes does not skip missing indices:
new Array(5).includes(undefined); // true
It can be polyfilled to make it work on all browsers.
Let's say you've defined an array like so:
const array = [1, 2, 3, 4]
Below are three ways of checking whether there is a 3 in there. All of them return either true or false.
Native Array method (since ES2016) (compatibility table)
array.includes(3) // true
As custom Array method (pre ES2016)
// Prefixing the method with '_' to avoid name clashes
Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, '_includes', { value: function (v) { return this.indexOf(v) !== -1 }})
array._includes(3) // true
Simple function
const includes = (a, v) => a.indexOf(v) !== -1
includes(array, 3) // true
Here's a JavaScript 1.6 compatible implementation of Array.indexOf:
if (!Array.indexOf) {
Array.indexOf = [].indexOf ?
function(arr, obj, from) {
return arr.indexOf(obj, from);
} :
function(arr, obj, from) { // (for IE6)
var l = arr.length,
i = from ? parseInt((1 * from) + (from < 0 ? l : 0), 10) : 0;
i = i < 0 ? 0 : i;
for (; i < l; i++) {
if (i in arr && arr[i] === obj) {
return i;
}
}
return -1;
};
}
Use:
function isInArray(array, search)
{
return array.indexOf(search) >= 0;
}
// Usage
if(isInArray(my_array, "my_value"))
{
//...
}
Extending the JavaScript Array object is a really bad idea because you introduce new properties (your custom methods) into for-in loops which can break existing scripts. A few years ago the authors of the Prototype library had to re-engineer their library implementation to remove just this kind of thing.
If you don't need to worry about compatibility with other JavaScript running on your page, go for it, otherwise, I'd recommend the more awkward, but safer free-standing function solution.
Performance
Today 2020.01.07 I perform tests on MacOs HighSierra 10.13.6 on Chrome v78.0.0, Safari v13.0.4 and Firefox v71.0.0 for 15 chosen solutions. Conclusions
solutions based on JSON, Set and surprisingly find (K,N,O) are slowest on all browsers
the es6 includes (F) is fast only on chrome
the solutions based on for (C,D) and indexOf (G,H) are quite-fast on all browsers on small and big arrays so probably they are best choice for efficient solution
the solutions where index decrease during loop, (B) is slower probably because the way of CPU cache works.
I also run test for big array when searched element was on position 66% of array length, and solutions based on for (C,D,E) gives similar results (~630 ops/sec - but the E on safari and firefox was 10-20% slower than C and D)
Results
Details
I perform 2 tests cases: for array with 10 elements, and array with 1 milion elements. In both cases we put searched element in the array middle.
let log = (name,f) => console.log(`${name}: 3-${f(arr,'s10')} 's7'-${f(arr,'s7')} 6-${f(arr,6)} 's3'-${f(arr,'s3')}`)
let arr = [1,2,3,4,5,'s6','s7','s8','s9','s10'];
//arr = new Array(1000000).fill(123); arr[500000]=7;
function A(a, val) {
var i = -1;
var n = a.length;
while (i++<n) {
if (a[i] === val) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
function B(a, val) {
var i = a.length;
while (i--) {
if (a[i] === val) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
function C(a, val) {
for (var i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
if (a[i] === val) return true;
}
return false;
}
function D(a,val)
{
var len = a.length;
for(var i = 0 ; i < len;i++)
{
if(a[i] === val) return true;
}
return false;
}
function E(a, val){
var n = a.length-1;
var t = n/2;
for (var i = 0; i <= t; i++) {
if (a[i] === val || a[n-i] === val) return true;
}
return false;
}
function F(a,val) {
return a.includes(val);
}
function G(a,val) {
return a.indexOf(val)>=0;
}
function H(a,val) {
return !!~a.indexOf(val);
}
function I(a, val) {
return a.findIndex(x=> x==val)>=0;
}
function J(a,val) {
return a.some(x=> x===val);
}
function K(a, val) {
const s = JSON.stringify(val);
return a.some(x => JSON.stringify(x) === s);
}
function L(a,val) {
return !a.every(x=> x!==val);
}
function M(a, val) {
return !!a.find(x=> x==val);
}
function N(a,val) {
return a.filter(x=>x===val).length > 0;
}
function O(a, val) {
return new Set(a).has(val);
}
log('A',A);
log('B',B);
log('C',C);
log('D',D);
log('E',E);
log('F',F);
log('G',G);
log('H',H);
log('I',I);
log('J',J);
log('K',K);
log('L',L);
log('M',M);
log('N',N);
log('O',O);
This shippet only presents functions used in performance tests - it not perform tests itself!
Array small - 10 elements
You can perform tests in your machine HERE
Array big - 1.000.000 elements
You can perform tests in your machine HERE
One-liner:
function contains(arr, x) {
return arr.filter(function(elem) { return elem == x }).length > 0;
}
Thinking out of the box for a second, if you are making this call many many times, it is vastly more efficient to use an associative array a Map to do lookups using a hash function.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Map
I use the following:
Array.prototype.contains = function (v) {
return this.indexOf(v) > -1;
}
var a = [ 'foo', 'bar' ];
a.contains('foo'); // true
a.contains('fox'); // false
function contains(a, obj) {
return a.some(function(element){return element == obj;})
}
Array.prototype.some() was added to the ECMA-262 standard in the 5th edition
If you are using JavaScript 1.6 or later (Firefox 1.5 or later) you can use Array.indexOf. Otherwise, I think you are going to end up with something similar to your original code.
A hopefully faster bidirectional indexOf / lastIndexOf alternative
2015
While the new method includes is very nice, the support is basically zero for now.
It's a long time that I was thinking of a way to replace the slow indexOf/lastIndexOf functions.
A performant way has already been found, looking at the top answers. From those I chose the contains function posted by #Damir Zekic which should be the fastest one. But it also states that the benchmarks are from 2008 and so are outdated.
I also prefer while over for, but for not a specific reason I ended writing the function with a for loop. It could be also done with a while --.
I was curious if the iteration was much slower if I check both sides of the array while doing it. Apparently no, and so this function is around two times faster than the top voted ones. Obviously it's also faster than the native one. This is in a real world environment, where you never know if the value you are searching is at the beginning or at the end of the array.
When you know you just pushed an array with a value, using lastIndexOf remains probably the best solution, but if you have to travel through big arrays and the result could be everywhere, this could be a solid solution to make things faster.
Bidirectional indexOf/lastIndexOf
function bidirectionalIndexOf(a, b, c, d, e){
for(c=a.length,d=c*1; c--; ){
if(a[c]==b) return c; //or this[c]===b
if(a[e=d-1-c]==b) return e; //or a[e=d-1-c]===b
}
return -1
}
//Usage
bidirectionalIndexOf(array,'value');
Performance test
https://jsbench.me/7el1b8dj80
As a test I created an array with 100k entries.
Three queries: at the beginning, in the middle & at the end of the array.
I hope you also find this interesting and test the performance.
Note: As you can see I slightly modified the contains function to reflect the indexOf & lastIndexOf output (so basically true with the index and false with -1). That shouldn't harm it.
The array prototype variant
Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype,'bidirectionalIndexOf',{value:function(b,c,d,e){
for(c=this.length,d=c*1; c--; ){
if(this[c]==b) return c; //or this[c]===b
if(this[e=d-1-c] == b) return e; //or this[e=d-1-c]===b
}
return -1
},writable:false, enumerable:false});
// Usage
array.bidirectionalIndexOf('value');
The function can also be easily modified to return true or false or even the object, string or whatever it is.
And here is the while variant:
function bidirectionalIndexOf(a, b, c, d){
c=a.length; d=c-1;
while(c--){
if(b===a[c]) return c;
if(b===a[d-c]) return d-c;
}
return c
}
// Usage
bidirectionalIndexOf(array,'value');
How is this possible?
I think that the simple calculation to get the reflected index in an array is so simple that it's two times faster than doing an actual loop iteration.
Here is a complex example doing three checks per iteration, but this is only possible with a longer calculation which causes the slowdown of the code.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151019160219/http://jsperf.com/bidirectionalindexof/2
function inArray(elem,array)
{
var len = array.length;
for(var i = 0 ; i < len;i++)
{
if(array[i] == elem){return i;}
}
return -1;
}
Returns array index if found, or -1 if not found
If you are checking repeatedly for existence of an object in an array you should maybe look into
Keeping the array sorted at all times by doing insertion sort in your array (put new objects in on the right place)
Make updating objects as remove+sorted insert operation and
Use a binary search lookup in your contains(a, obj).
We use this snippet (works with objects, arrays, strings):
/*
* #function
* #name Object.prototype.inArray
* #description Extend Object prototype within inArray function
*
* #param {mix} needle - Search-able needle
* #param {bool} searchInKey - Search needle in keys?
*
*/
Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype, 'inArray',{
value: function(needle, searchInKey){
var object = this;
if( Object.prototype.toString.call(needle) === '[object Object]' ||
Object.prototype.toString.call(needle) === '[object Array]'){
needle = JSON.stringify(needle);
}
return Object.keys(object).some(function(key){
var value = object[key];
if( Object.prototype.toString.call(value) === '[object Object]' ||
Object.prototype.toString.call(value) === '[object Array]'){
value = JSON.stringify(value);
}
if(searchInKey){
if(value === needle || key === needle){
return true;
}
}else{
if(value === needle){
return true;
}
}
});
},
writable: true,
configurable: true,
enumerable: false
});
Usage:
var a = {one: "first", two: "second", foo: {three: "third"}};
a.inArray("first"); //true
a.inArray("foo"); //false
a.inArray("foo", true); //true - search by keys
a.inArray({three: "third"}); //true
var b = ["one", "two", "three", "four", {foo: 'val'}];
b.inArray("one"); //true
b.inArray('foo'); //false
b.inArray({foo: 'val'}) //true
b.inArray("{foo: 'val'}") //false
var c = "String";
c.inArray("S"); //true
c.inArray("s"); //false
c.inArray("2", true); //true
c.inArray("20", true); //false
Solution that works in all modern browsers:
function contains(arr, obj) {
const stringifiedObj = JSON.stringify(obj); // Cache our object to not call `JSON.stringify` on every iteration
return arr.some(item => JSON.stringify(item) === stringifiedObj);
}
Usage:
contains([{a: 1}, {a: 2}], {a: 1}); // true
IE6+ solution:
function contains(arr, obj) {
var stringifiedObj = JSON.stringify(obj)
return arr.some(function (item) {
return JSON.stringify(item) === stringifiedObj;
});
}
// .some polyfill, not needed for IE9+
if (!('some' in Array.prototype)) {
Array.prototype.some = function (tester, that /*opt*/) {
for (var i = 0, n = this.length; i < n; i++) {
if (i in this && tester.call(that, this[i], i, this)) return true;
} return false;
};
}
Usage:
contains([{a: 1}, {a: 2}], {a: 1}); // true
Why to use JSON.stringify?
Array.indexOf and Array.includes (as well as most of the answers here) only compare by reference and not by value.
[{a: 1}, {a: 2}].includes({a: 1});
// false, because {a: 1} is a new object
Bonus
Non-optimized ES6 one-liner:
[{a: 1}, {a: 2}].some(item => JSON.stringify(item) === JSON.stringify({a: 1));
// true
Note:
Comparing objects by value will work better if the keys are in the same order, so to be safe you might sort the keys first with a package like this one: https://www.npmjs.com/package/sort-keys
Updated the contains function with a perf optimization. Thanks itinance for pointing it out.
There are a couple of method which makes this easy to achieve (includes, some, find, findIndex)
const array = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7];
console.log(array.includes(3));
//includes() determines whether an array includes a certain value among its entries
console.log(array.some(x => x === 3));
//some() tests if at least one element in the array passes the test implemented by the provided function
console.log(array.find(x => x === 3) ? true : false);
//find() returns the value of the first element in the provided array that satisfies the provided testing function
console.log(array.findIndex(x => x === 3) > -1);
//findIndex() returns the index of the first element in the array that satisfies the provided testing function, else returning -1.
More about includes, some, find, findIndex
Use lodash's some function.
It's concise, accurate and has great cross platform support.
The accepted answer does not even meet the requirements.
Requirements: Recommend most concise and efficient way to find out if a JavaScript array contains an object.
Accepted Answer:
$.inArray({'b': 2}, [{'a': 1}, {'b': 2}])
> -1
My recommendation:
_.some([{'a': 1}, {'b': 2}], {'b': 2})
> true
Notes:
$.inArray works fine for determining whether a scalar value exists in an array of scalars...
$.inArray(2, [1,2])
> 1
... but the question clearly asks for an efficient way to determine if an object is contained in an array.
In order to handle both scalars and objects, you could do this:
(_.isObject(item)) ? _.some(ary, item) : (_.indexOf(ary, item) > -1)
Simple solution for this requirement is using find()
If you're having array of objects like below,
var users = [{id: "101", name: "Choose one..."},
{id: "102", name: "shilpa"},
{id: "103", name: "anita"},
{id: "104", name: "admin"},
{id: "105", name: "user"}];
Then you can check whether the object with your value is already present or not:
let data = users.find(object => object['id'] === '104');
if data is null then no admin, else it will return the existing object like:
{id: "104", name: "admin"}
Then you can find the index of that object in the array and replace the object using the code:
let indexToUpdate = users.indexOf(data);
let newObject = {id: "104", name: "customer"};
users[indexToUpdate] = newObject;//your new object
console.log(users);
you will get value like:
[{id: "101", name: "Choose one..."},
{id: "102", name: "shilpa"},
{id: "103", name: "anita"},
{id: "104", name: "customer"},
{id: "105", name: "user"}];
ECMAScript 6 has an elegant proposal on find.
The find method executes the callback function once for each element
present in the array until it finds one where callback returns a true
value. If such an element is found, find immediately returns the value
of that element. Otherwise, find returns undefined. callback is
invoked only for indexes of the array which have assigned values; it
is not invoked for indexes which have been deleted or which have never
been assigned values.
Here is the MDN documentation on that.
The find functionality works like this.
function isPrime(element, index, array) {
var start = 2;
while (start <= Math.sqrt(element)) {
if (element % start++ < 1) return false;
}
return (element > 1);
}
console.log( [4, 6, 8, 12].find(isPrime) ); // Undefined, not found
console.log( [4, 5, 8, 12].find(isPrime) ); // 5
You can use this in ECMAScript 5 and below by defining the function.
if (!Array.prototype.find) {
Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, 'find', {
enumerable: false,
configurable: true,
writable: true,
value: function(predicate) {
if (this == null) {
throw new TypeError('Array.prototype.find called on null or undefined');
}
if (typeof predicate !== 'function') {
throw new TypeError('predicate must be a function');
}
var list = Object(this);
var length = list.length >>> 0;
var thisArg = arguments[1];
var value;
for (var i = 0; i < length; i++) {
if (i in list) {
value = list[i];
if (predicate.call(thisArg, value, i, list)) {
return value;
}
}
}
return undefined;
}
});
}
While array.indexOf(x)!=-1 is the most concise way to do this (and has been supported by non-Internet Explorer browsers for over decade...), it is not O(1), but rather O(N), which is terrible. If your array will not be changing, you can convert your array to a hashtable, then do table[x]!==undefined or ===undefined:
Array.prototype.toTable = function() {
var t = {};
this.forEach(function(x){t[x]=true});
return t;
}
Demo:
var toRemove = [2,4].toTable();
[1,2,3,4,5].filter(function(x){return toRemove[x]===undefined})
(Unfortunately, while you can create an Array.prototype.contains to "freeze" an array and store a hashtable in this._cache in two lines, this would give wrong results if you chose to edit your array later. JavaScript has insufficient hooks to let you keep this state, unlike Python for example.)
One can use Set that has the method "has()":
function contains(arr, obj) {
var proxy = new Set(arr);
if (proxy.has(obj))
return true;
else
return false;
}
var arr = ['Happy', 'New', 'Year'];
console.log(contains(arr, 'Happy'));
Use:
var myArray = ['yellow', 'orange', 'red'] ;
alert(!!~myArray.indexOf('red')); //true
Demo
To know exactly what the tilde ~ do at this point, refer to this question What does a tilde do when it precedes an expression?.
OK, you can just optimise your code to get the result!
There are many ways to do this which are cleaner and better, but I just wanted to get your pattern and apply to that using JSON.stringify, just simply do something like this in your case:
function contains(a, obj) {
for (var i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
if (JSON.stringify(a[i]) === JSON.stringify(obj)) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
Surprised that this question still doesn't have latest syntax added, adding my 2 cents.
Let's say we have array of Objects arrObj and we want to search obj in it.
Array.prototype.indexOf -> (returns index or -1) is generally used for finding index of element in array.
This can also be used for searching object but only works if you are passing reference to same object.
let obj = { name: 'Sumer', age: 36 };
let arrObj = [obj, { name: 'Kishor', age: 46 }, { name: 'Rupen', age: 26 }];
console.log(arrObj.indexOf(obj));// 0
console.log(arrObj.indexOf({ name: 'Sumer', age: 36 })); //-1
console.log([1, 3, 5, 2].indexOf(2)); //3
Array.prototype.includes -> (returns true or false)
console.log(arrObj.includes(obj)); //true
console.log(arrObj.includes({ name: 'Sumer', age: 36 })); //false
console.log([1, 3, 5, 2].includes(2)); //true
Array.prototype.find -> (takes callback, returns first value/object that returns true in CB).
console.log(arrObj.find(e => e.age > 40)); //{ name: 'Kishor', age: 46 }
console.log(arrObj.find(e => e.age > 40)); //{ name: 'Kishor', age: 46 }
console.log([1, 3, 5, 2].find(e => e > 2)); //3
Array.prototype.findIndex -> (takes callback, returns index of first value/object that returns true in CB).
console.log(arrObj.findIndex(e => e.age > 40)); //1
console.log(arrObj.findIndex(e => e.age > 40)); //1
console.log([1, 3, 5, 2].findIndex(e => e > 2)); //1
Since find and findIndex takes a callback, we can be fetch any object(even if we don't have the reference) from array by creatively setting the true condition.
It has one parameter: an array numbers of objects. Each object in the array has two integer properties denoted by x and y. The function must return a count of all such objects in the array that satisfy numbers.x == numbers.y
var numbers = [ { x: 1, y: 1 },
{ x: 2, y: 3 },
{ x: 3, y: 3 },
{ x: 3, y: 4 },
{ x: 4, y: 5 } ];
var count = 0;
var n = numbers.length;
for (var i =0;i<n;i++)
{
if(numbers[i].x==numbers[i].y)
{count+=1;}
}
alert(count);
What is the most concise and efficient way to find out if a JavaScript array contains a value?
This is the only way I know to do it:
function contains(a, obj) {
for (var i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
if (a[i] === obj) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
Is there a better and more concise way to accomplish this?
This is very closely related to Stack Overflow question Best way to find an item in a JavaScript Array? which addresses finding objects in an array using indexOf.
Modern browsers have Array#includes, which does exactly that and is widely supported by everyone except IE:
console.log(['joe', 'jane', 'mary'].includes('jane')); //true
You can also use Array#indexOf, which is less direct, but doesn't require polyfills for outdated browsers.
console.log(['joe', 'jane', 'mary'].indexOf('jane') >= 0); //true
Many frameworks also offer similar methods:
jQuery: $.inArray(value, array, [fromIndex])
Underscore.js: _.contains(array, value) (also aliased as _.include and _.includes)
Dojo Toolkit: dojo.indexOf(array, value, [fromIndex, findLast])
Prototype: array.indexOf(value)
MooTools: array.indexOf(value)
MochiKit: findValue(array, value)
MS Ajax: array.indexOf(value)
Ext: Ext.Array.contains(array, value)
Lodash: _.includes(array, value, [from]) (is _.contains prior 4.0.0)
Ramda: R.includes(value, array)
Notice that some frameworks implement this as a function, while others add the function to the array prototype.
Update from 2019: This answer is from 2008 (11 years old!) and is not relevant for modern JS usage. The promised performance improvement was based on a benchmark done in browsers of that time. It might not be relevant to modern JS execution contexts. If you need an easy solution, look for other answers. If you need the best performance, benchmark for yourself in the relevant execution environments.
As others have said, the iteration through the array is probably the best way, but it has been proven that a decreasing while loop is the fastest way to iterate in JavaScript. So you may want to rewrite your code as follows:
function contains(a, obj) {
var i = a.length;
while (i--) {
if (a[i] === obj) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
Of course, you may as well extend Array prototype:
Array.prototype.contains = function(obj) {
var i = this.length;
while (i--) {
if (this[i] === obj) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
And now you can simply use the following:
alert([1, 2, 3].contains(2)); // => true
alert([1, 2, 3].contains('2')); // => false
indexOf maybe, but it's a "JavaScript extension to the ECMA-262 standard; as such it may not be present in other implementations of the standard."
Example:
[1, 2, 3].indexOf(1) => 0
["foo", "bar", "baz"].indexOf("bar") => 1
[1, 2, 3].indexOf(4) => -1
AFAICS Microsoft does not offer some kind of alternative to this, but you can add similar functionality to arrays in Internet Explorer (and other browsers that don't support indexOf) if you want to, as a quick Google search reveals (for example, this one).
The top answers assume primitive types but if you want to find out if an array contains an object with some trait, Array.prototype.some() is an elegant solution:
const items = [ {a: '1'}, {a: '2'}, {a: '3'} ]
items.some(item => item.a === '3') // returns true
items.some(item => item.a === '4') // returns false
The nice thing about it is that the iteration is aborted once the element is found so unnecessary iteration cycles are spared.
Also, it fits nicely in an if statement since it returns a boolean:
if (items.some(item => item.a === '3')) {
// do something
}
* As jamess pointed out in the comment, at the time of this answer, September 2018, Array.prototype.some() is fully supported: caniuse.com support table
ECMAScript 7 introduces Array.prototype.includes.
It can be used like this:
[1, 2, 3].includes(2); // true
[1, 2, 3].includes(4); // false
It also accepts an optional second argument fromIndex:
[1, 2, 3].includes(3, 3); // false
[1, 2, 3].includes(3, -1); // true
Unlike indexOf, which uses Strict Equality Comparison, includes compares using SameValueZero equality algorithm. That means that you can detect if an array includes a NaN:
[1, 2, NaN].includes(NaN); // true
Also unlike indexOf, includes does not skip missing indices:
new Array(5).includes(undefined); // true
It can be polyfilled to make it work on all browsers.
Let's say you've defined an array like so:
const array = [1, 2, 3, 4]
Below are three ways of checking whether there is a 3 in there. All of them return either true or false.
Native Array method (since ES2016) (compatibility table)
array.includes(3) // true
As custom Array method (pre ES2016)
// Prefixing the method with '_' to avoid name clashes
Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, '_includes', { value: function (v) { return this.indexOf(v) !== -1 }})
array._includes(3) // true
Simple function
const includes = (a, v) => a.indexOf(v) !== -1
includes(array, 3) // true
Here's a JavaScript 1.6 compatible implementation of Array.indexOf:
if (!Array.indexOf) {
Array.indexOf = [].indexOf ?
function(arr, obj, from) {
return arr.indexOf(obj, from);
} :
function(arr, obj, from) { // (for IE6)
var l = arr.length,
i = from ? parseInt((1 * from) + (from < 0 ? l : 0), 10) : 0;
i = i < 0 ? 0 : i;
for (; i < l; i++) {
if (i in arr && arr[i] === obj) {
return i;
}
}
return -1;
};
}
Use:
function isInArray(array, search)
{
return array.indexOf(search) >= 0;
}
// Usage
if(isInArray(my_array, "my_value"))
{
//...
}
Extending the JavaScript Array object is a really bad idea because you introduce new properties (your custom methods) into for-in loops which can break existing scripts. A few years ago the authors of the Prototype library had to re-engineer their library implementation to remove just this kind of thing.
If you don't need to worry about compatibility with other JavaScript running on your page, go for it, otherwise, I'd recommend the more awkward, but safer free-standing function solution.
Performance
Today 2020.01.07 I perform tests on MacOs HighSierra 10.13.6 on Chrome v78.0.0, Safari v13.0.4 and Firefox v71.0.0 for 15 chosen solutions. Conclusions
solutions based on JSON, Set and surprisingly find (K,N,O) are slowest on all browsers
the es6 includes (F) is fast only on chrome
the solutions based on for (C,D) and indexOf (G,H) are quite-fast on all browsers on small and big arrays so probably they are best choice for efficient solution
the solutions where index decrease during loop, (B) is slower probably because the way of CPU cache works.
I also run test for big array when searched element was on position 66% of array length, and solutions based on for (C,D,E) gives similar results (~630 ops/sec - but the E on safari and firefox was 10-20% slower than C and D)
Results
Details
I perform 2 tests cases: for array with 10 elements, and array with 1 milion elements. In both cases we put searched element in the array middle.
let log = (name,f) => console.log(`${name}: 3-${f(arr,'s10')} 's7'-${f(arr,'s7')} 6-${f(arr,6)} 's3'-${f(arr,'s3')}`)
let arr = [1,2,3,4,5,'s6','s7','s8','s9','s10'];
//arr = new Array(1000000).fill(123); arr[500000]=7;
function A(a, val) {
var i = -1;
var n = a.length;
while (i++<n) {
if (a[i] === val) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
function B(a, val) {
var i = a.length;
while (i--) {
if (a[i] === val) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
function C(a, val) {
for (var i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
if (a[i] === val) return true;
}
return false;
}
function D(a,val)
{
var len = a.length;
for(var i = 0 ; i < len;i++)
{
if(a[i] === val) return true;
}
return false;
}
function E(a, val){
var n = a.length-1;
var t = n/2;
for (var i = 0; i <= t; i++) {
if (a[i] === val || a[n-i] === val) return true;
}
return false;
}
function F(a,val) {
return a.includes(val);
}
function G(a,val) {
return a.indexOf(val)>=0;
}
function H(a,val) {
return !!~a.indexOf(val);
}
function I(a, val) {
return a.findIndex(x=> x==val)>=0;
}
function J(a,val) {
return a.some(x=> x===val);
}
function K(a, val) {
const s = JSON.stringify(val);
return a.some(x => JSON.stringify(x) === s);
}
function L(a,val) {
return !a.every(x=> x!==val);
}
function M(a, val) {
return !!a.find(x=> x==val);
}
function N(a,val) {
return a.filter(x=>x===val).length > 0;
}
function O(a, val) {
return new Set(a).has(val);
}
log('A',A);
log('B',B);
log('C',C);
log('D',D);
log('E',E);
log('F',F);
log('G',G);
log('H',H);
log('I',I);
log('J',J);
log('K',K);
log('L',L);
log('M',M);
log('N',N);
log('O',O);
This shippet only presents functions used in performance tests - it not perform tests itself!
Array small - 10 elements
You can perform tests in your machine HERE
Array big - 1.000.000 elements
You can perform tests in your machine HERE
One-liner:
function contains(arr, x) {
return arr.filter(function(elem) { return elem == x }).length > 0;
}
Thinking out of the box for a second, if you are making this call many many times, it is vastly more efficient to use an associative array a Map to do lookups using a hash function.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Map
I use the following:
Array.prototype.contains = function (v) {
return this.indexOf(v) > -1;
}
var a = [ 'foo', 'bar' ];
a.contains('foo'); // true
a.contains('fox'); // false
function contains(a, obj) {
return a.some(function(element){return element == obj;})
}
Array.prototype.some() was added to the ECMA-262 standard in the 5th edition
If you are using JavaScript 1.6 or later (Firefox 1.5 or later) you can use Array.indexOf. Otherwise, I think you are going to end up with something similar to your original code.
A hopefully faster bidirectional indexOf / lastIndexOf alternative
2015
While the new method includes is very nice, the support is basically zero for now.
It's a long time that I was thinking of a way to replace the slow indexOf/lastIndexOf functions.
A performant way has already been found, looking at the top answers. From those I chose the contains function posted by #Damir Zekic which should be the fastest one. But it also states that the benchmarks are from 2008 and so are outdated.
I also prefer while over for, but for not a specific reason I ended writing the function with a for loop. It could be also done with a while --.
I was curious if the iteration was much slower if I check both sides of the array while doing it. Apparently no, and so this function is around two times faster than the top voted ones. Obviously it's also faster than the native one. This is in a real world environment, where you never know if the value you are searching is at the beginning or at the end of the array.
When you know you just pushed an array with a value, using lastIndexOf remains probably the best solution, but if you have to travel through big arrays and the result could be everywhere, this could be a solid solution to make things faster.
Bidirectional indexOf/lastIndexOf
function bidirectionalIndexOf(a, b, c, d, e){
for(c=a.length,d=c*1; c--; ){
if(a[c]==b) return c; //or this[c]===b
if(a[e=d-1-c]==b) return e; //or a[e=d-1-c]===b
}
return -1
}
//Usage
bidirectionalIndexOf(array,'value');
Performance test
https://jsbench.me/7el1b8dj80
As a test I created an array with 100k entries.
Three queries: at the beginning, in the middle & at the end of the array.
I hope you also find this interesting and test the performance.
Note: As you can see I slightly modified the contains function to reflect the indexOf & lastIndexOf output (so basically true with the index and false with -1). That shouldn't harm it.
The array prototype variant
Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype,'bidirectionalIndexOf',{value:function(b,c,d,e){
for(c=this.length,d=c*1; c--; ){
if(this[c]==b) return c; //or this[c]===b
if(this[e=d-1-c] == b) return e; //or this[e=d-1-c]===b
}
return -1
},writable:false, enumerable:false});
// Usage
array.bidirectionalIndexOf('value');
The function can also be easily modified to return true or false or even the object, string or whatever it is.
And here is the while variant:
function bidirectionalIndexOf(a, b, c, d){
c=a.length; d=c-1;
while(c--){
if(b===a[c]) return c;
if(b===a[d-c]) return d-c;
}
return c
}
// Usage
bidirectionalIndexOf(array,'value');
How is this possible?
I think that the simple calculation to get the reflected index in an array is so simple that it's two times faster than doing an actual loop iteration.
Here is a complex example doing three checks per iteration, but this is only possible with a longer calculation which causes the slowdown of the code.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151019160219/http://jsperf.com/bidirectionalindexof/2
function inArray(elem,array)
{
var len = array.length;
for(var i = 0 ; i < len;i++)
{
if(array[i] == elem){return i;}
}
return -1;
}
Returns array index if found, or -1 if not found
If you are checking repeatedly for existence of an object in an array you should maybe look into
Keeping the array sorted at all times by doing insertion sort in your array (put new objects in on the right place)
Make updating objects as remove+sorted insert operation and
Use a binary search lookup in your contains(a, obj).
We use this snippet (works with objects, arrays, strings):
/*
* #function
* #name Object.prototype.inArray
* #description Extend Object prototype within inArray function
*
* #param {mix} needle - Search-able needle
* #param {bool} searchInKey - Search needle in keys?
*
*/
Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype, 'inArray',{
value: function(needle, searchInKey){
var object = this;
if( Object.prototype.toString.call(needle) === '[object Object]' ||
Object.prototype.toString.call(needle) === '[object Array]'){
needle = JSON.stringify(needle);
}
return Object.keys(object).some(function(key){
var value = object[key];
if( Object.prototype.toString.call(value) === '[object Object]' ||
Object.prototype.toString.call(value) === '[object Array]'){
value = JSON.stringify(value);
}
if(searchInKey){
if(value === needle || key === needle){
return true;
}
}else{
if(value === needle){
return true;
}
}
});
},
writable: true,
configurable: true,
enumerable: false
});
Usage:
var a = {one: "first", two: "second", foo: {three: "third"}};
a.inArray("first"); //true
a.inArray("foo"); //false
a.inArray("foo", true); //true - search by keys
a.inArray({three: "third"}); //true
var b = ["one", "two", "three", "four", {foo: 'val'}];
b.inArray("one"); //true
b.inArray('foo'); //false
b.inArray({foo: 'val'}) //true
b.inArray("{foo: 'val'}") //false
var c = "String";
c.inArray("S"); //true
c.inArray("s"); //false
c.inArray("2", true); //true
c.inArray("20", true); //false
Solution that works in all modern browsers:
function contains(arr, obj) {
const stringifiedObj = JSON.stringify(obj); // Cache our object to not call `JSON.stringify` on every iteration
return arr.some(item => JSON.stringify(item) === stringifiedObj);
}
Usage:
contains([{a: 1}, {a: 2}], {a: 1}); // true
IE6+ solution:
function contains(arr, obj) {
var stringifiedObj = JSON.stringify(obj)
return arr.some(function (item) {
return JSON.stringify(item) === stringifiedObj;
});
}
// .some polyfill, not needed for IE9+
if (!('some' in Array.prototype)) {
Array.prototype.some = function (tester, that /*opt*/) {
for (var i = 0, n = this.length; i < n; i++) {
if (i in this && tester.call(that, this[i], i, this)) return true;
} return false;
};
}
Usage:
contains([{a: 1}, {a: 2}], {a: 1}); // true
Why to use JSON.stringify?
Array.indexOf and Array.includes (as well as most of the answers here) only compare by reference and not by value.
[{a: 1}, {a: 2}].includes({a: 1});
// false, because {a: 1} is a new object
Bonus
Non-optimized ES6 one-liner:
[{a: 1}, {a: 2}].some(item => JSON.stringify(item) === JSON.stringify({a: 1));
// true
Note:
Comparing objects by value will work better if the keys are in the same order, so to be safe you might sort the keys first with a package like this one: https://www.npmjs.com/package/sort-keys
Updated the contains function with a perf optimization. Thanks itinance for pointing it out.
There are a couple of method which makes this easy to achieve (includes, some, find, findIndex)
const array = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7];
console.log(array.includes(3));
//includes() determines whether an array includes a certain value among its entries
console.log(array.some(x => x === 3));
//some() tests if at least one element in the array passes the test implemented by the provided function
console.log(array.find(x => x === 3) ? true : false);
//find() returns the value of the first element in the provided array that satisfies the provided testing function
console.log(array.findIndex(x => x === 3) > -1);
//findIndex() returns the index of the first element in the array that satisfies the provided testing function, else returning -1.
More about includes, some, find, findIndex
Use lodash's some function.
It's concise, accurate and has great cross platform support.
The accepted answer does not even meet the requirements.
Requirements: Recommend most concise and efficient way to find out if a JavaScript array contains an object.
Accepted Answer:
$.inArray({'b': 2}, [{'a': 1}, {'b': 2}])
> -1
My recommendation:
_.some([{'a': 1}, {'b': 2}], {'b': 2})
> true
Notes:
$.inArray works fine for determining whether a scalar value exists in an array of scalars...
$.inArray(2, [1,2])
> 1
... but the question clearly asks for an efficient way to determine if an object is contained in an array.
In order to handle both scalars and objects, you could do this:
(_.isObject(item)) ? _.some(ary, item) : (_.indexOf(ary, item) > -1)
Simple solution for this requirement is using find()
If you're having array of objects like below,
var users = [{id: "101", name: "Choose one..."},
{id: "102", name: "shilpa"},
{id: "103", name: "anita"},
{id: "104", name: "admin"},
{id: "105", name: "user"}];
Then you can check whether the object with your value is already present or not:
let data = users.find(object => object['id'] === '104');
if data is null then no admin, else it will return the existing object like:
{id: "104", name: "admin"}
Then you can find the index of that object in the array and replace the object using the code:
let indexToUpdate = users.indexOf(data);
let newObject = {id: "104", name: "customer"};
users[indexToUpdate] = newObject;//your new object
console.log(users);
you will get value like:
[{id: "101", name: "Choose one..."},
{id: "102", name: "shilpa"},
{id: "103", name: "anita"},
{id: "104", name: "customer"},
{id: "105", name: "user"}];
ECMAScript 6 has an elegant proposal on find.
The find method executes the callback function once for each element
present in the array until it finds one where callback returns a true
value. If such an element is found, find immediately returns the value
of that element. Otherwise, find returns undefined. callback is
invoked only for indexes of the array which have assigned values; it
is not invoked for indexes which have been deleted or which have never
been assigned values.
Here is the MDN documentation on that.
The find functionality works like this.
function isPrime(element, index, array) {
var start = 2;
while (start <= Math.sqrt(element)) {
if (element % start++ < 1) return false;
}
return (element > 1);
}
console.log( [4, 6, 8, 12].find(isPrime) ); // Undefined, not found
console.log( [4, 5, 8, 12].find(isPrime) ); // 5
You can use this in ECMAScript 5 and below by defining the function.
if (!Array.prototype.find) {
Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, 'find', {
enumerable: false,
configurable: true,
writable: true,
value: function(predicate) {
if (this == null) {
throw new TypeError('Array.prototype.find called on null or undefined');
}
if (typeof predicate !== 'function') {
throw new TypeError('predicate must be a function');
}
var list = Object(this);
var length = list.length >>> 0;
var thisArg = arguments[1];
var value;
for (var i = 0; i < length; i++) {
if (i in list) {
value = list[i];
if (predicate.call(thisArg, value, i, list)) {
return value;
}
}
}
return undefined;
}
});
}
While array.indexOf(x)!=-1 is the most concise way to do this (and has been supported by non-Internet Explorer browsers for over decade...), it is not O(1), but rather O(N), which is terrible. If your array will not be changing, you can convert your array to a hashtable, then do table[x]!==undefined or ===undefined:
Array.prototype.toTable = function() {
var t = {};
this.forEach(function(x){t[x]=true});
return t;
}
Demo:
var toRemove = [2,4].toTable();
[1,2,3,4,5].filter(function(x){return toRemove[x]===undefined})
(Unfortunately, while you can create an Array.prototype.contains to "freeze" an array and store a hashtable in this._cache in two lines, this would give wrong results if you chose to edit your array later. JavaScript has insufficient hooks to let you keep this state, unlike Python for example.)
One can use Set that has the method "has()":
function contains(arr, obj) {
var proxy = new Set(arr);
if (proxy.has(obj))
return true;
else
return false;
}
var arr = ['Happy', 'New', 'Year'];
console.log(contains(arr, 'Happy'));
Use:
var myArray = ['yellow', 'orange', 'red'] ;
alert(!!~myArray.indexOf('red')); //true
Demo
To know exactly what the tilde ~ do at this point, refer to this question What does a tilde do when it precedes an expression?.
OK, you can just optimise your code to get the result!
There are many ways to do this which are cleaner and better, but I just wanted to get your pattern and apply to that using JSON.stringify, just simply do something like this in your case:
function contains(a, obj) {
for (var i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
if (JSON.stringify(a[i]) === JSON.stringify(obj)) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
Surprised that this question still doesn't have latest syntax added, adding my 2 cents.
Let's say we have array of Objects arrObj and we want to search obj in it.
Array.prototype.indexOf -> (returns index or -1) is generally used for finding index of element in array.
This can also be used for searching object but only works if you are passing reference to same object.
let obj = { name: 'Sumer', age: 36 };
let arrObj = [obj, { name: 'Kishor', age: 46 }, { name: 'Rupen', age: 26 }];
console.log(arrObj.indexOf(obj));// 0
console.log(arrObj.indexOf({ name: 'Sumer', age: 36 })); //-1
console.log([1, 3, 5, 2].indexOf(2)); //3
Array.prototype.includes -> (returns true or false)
console.log(arrObj.includes(obj)); //true
console.log(arrObj.includes({ name: 'Sumer', age: 36 })); //false
console.log([1, 3, 5, 2].includes(2)); //true
Array.prototype.find -> (takes callback, returns first value/object that returns true in CB).
console.log(arrObj.find(e => e.age > 40)); //{ name: 'Kishor', age: 46 }
console.log(arrObj.find(e => e.age > 40)); //{ name: 'Kishor', age: 46 }
console.log([1, 3, 5, 2].find(e => e > 2)); //3
Array.prototype.findIndex -> (takes callback, returns index of first value/object that returns true in CB).
console.log(arrObj.findIndex(e => e.age > 40)); //1
console.log(arrObj.findIndex(e => e.age > 40)); //1
console.log([1, 3, 5, 2].findIndex(e => e > 2)); //1
Since find and findIndex takes a callback, we can be fetch any object(even if we don't have the reference) from array by creatively setting the true condition.
It has one parameter: an array numbers of objects. Each object in the array has two integer properties denoted by x and y. The function must return a count of all such objects in the array that satisfy numbers.x == numbers.y
var numbers = [ { x: 1, y: 1 },
{ x: 2, y: 3 },
{ x: 3, y: 3 },
{ x: 3, y: 4 },
{ x: 4, y: 5 } ];
var count = 0;
var n = numbers.length;
for (var i =0;i<n;i++)
{
if(numbers[i].x==numbers[i].y)
{count+=1;}
}
alert(count);
Javascript has arrays which use numeric indexes ["john", "Bob", "Joe"] and objects which can be used like associative arrays or "maps" that allow string keys for the object values {"john" : 28, "bob": 34, "joe" : 4}.
In PHP it is easy to both A) sort by values (while maintaining the key) and B) test for the existence of a value in an associative array.
$array = ["john" => 28, "bob" => 34, "joe" => 4];
asort($array); // ["joe" => 4, "john" => 28, "bob" => 34];
if(isset($array["will"])) { }
How would you acheive this functionality in Javascript?
This is a common need for things like weighted lists or sorted sets where you need to keep a single copy of a value in data structure (like a tag name) and also keep a weighted value.
This is the best I've come up with so far:
function getSortedKeys(obj) {
var keys = Object.keys(obj);
keys = keys.sort(function(a,b){return obj[a]-obj[b]});
var map = {};
for (var i = keys.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
map[keys[i]] = obj[keys[i]];
};
return map;
}
var list = {"john" : 28, "bob": 34, "joe" : 4};
list = getSortedKeys(list);
if(list["will"]) { }
Looking at this answer by Luke Schafer I think I might have found a better way to handle this by extending the Object.prototype:
// Sort by value while keeping index
Object.prototype.iterateSorted = function(worker, limit)
{
var keys = Object.keys(this), self = this;
keys.sort(function(a,b){return self[b] - self[a]});
if(limit) {
limit = Math.min(keys.length, limit);
}
limit = limit || keys.length;
for (var i = 0; i < limit; i++) {
worker(keys[i], this[keys[i]]);
}
};
var myObj = { e:5, c:3, a:1, b:2, d:4, z:1};
myObj.iterateSorted(function(key, value) {
console.log("key", key, "value", value)
}, 3);
http://jsfiddle.net/Xeoncross/kq3gbwgh/
With ES6 you could choose to extend the Map constructor/class with a sort method that takes an optional compare function (just like arrays have). That sort method would take two arguments, each of which are key/value pairs so that the sorting can happen on either the keys or the values (or both).
The sort method will rely on the documented behaviour of Maps that entries are iterated in insertion order. So this new method will visit the entries according to the sorted order, and then delete and immediately re-insert them.
Here is how that could look:
class SortableMap extends Map {
sort(cmp = (a, b) => a[0].localeCompare(b[0])) {
for (const [key, value] of [...this.entries()].sort(cmp)) {
this.delete(key);
this.set(key, value); // New keys are added at the end of the order
}
}
}
// Demo
const mp = new SortableMap([[3, "three"],[1, "one"],[2, "two"]]);
console.log("Before: ", JSON.stringify([...mp])); // Before
mp.sort( (a, b) => a[0] - b[0] ); // Custom compare function: sort numerical keys
console.log(" After: ", JSON.stringify([...mp])); // After
I'm not sure why none of these answers mentions the existence of a built-in JS class, Set. Seems to be an ES6 addition, perhaps that's why.
Ideally override either add or keys below... NB overriding keys doesn't even need access to the Set object's prototype. Of course you could override these methods for the entire Set class. Or make a subclass, SortedSet.
const mySet = new Set();
const mySetProto = Object.getPrototypeOf(mySet);
const addOverride = function(newObj){
const arr = Array.from(this);
arr.add(newObj);
arr.sort(); // or arr.sort(function(a, b)...)
this.clear();
for(let item of arr){
mySetProto.add.call(this, item);
}
}
mySet.add = addOverride;
const keysOverride = function(){
const arr = Array.from(this);
arr.sort(); // or arr.sort(function(a, b)...)
return arr[Symbol.iterator]();
}
mySet.keys = keysOverride;
Usage:
mySet.add(3); mySet.add(2); mySet.add(1); mySet.add(2);
for(let item of mySet.keys()){console.log(item)};
Prints out:
1 ... 2 ... 3
NB Set.keys() returns not the items in the Set, but an iterator. You could choose to return the sorted array instead, but you'd obviously be breaking the class's "contract".
Which one to override? Depends on your usage and the size of your Set. If you override both you will be duplicating the sort activity, but in most cases it probably won't matter.
NB The add function I suggest is of course naive, a "first draft": rebuilding the entire set each time you add could be pretty costly. There are clearly much cleverer ways of doing this based on examining the existing elements in the Set and using a compare function, a binary tree structure*, or some other method to determine where in it to add the candidate for adding (I say "candidate" because it would be rejected if an "identical" element, namely itself, were already found to be present).
The question also asks about similar arrangements for a sorted map... in fact it turns out that ES6 has a new Map class which lends itself to similar treatment ... and also that Set is just a specialised Map, as you might expect.
* e.g. https://github.com/Crizstian/data-structure-and-algorithms-with-ES6/tree/master/10-chapter-Binary-Tree
You usually don't sort an object. But if you do: Sorting JavaScript Object by property value
If you want to sort an array, let's say the following
var arraylist = [{"john" : 28},{ "bob": 34},{ "joe" : 4}];
You can always use Array.prototype.sort function.
Source: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Array/sort
Maybe this code look like what you want:
Object.prototype.asort = function(){
var retVal = {};
var self = this;
var keys = Object.keys(this);
keys = keys.sort(function(a,b){return self[a] - self[b]});
for (var i = 0; i < keys.length; i++) {
retVal[keys[i]] = this[keys[i]];
}
return retVal;
}
var map = {"john" : 28, "bob": 34, "joe" : 4}
var sortedMap = map.asort();//sortedMap["will"]: undefined
If you use the open source project jinqJs its easy.
See Fiddler
var result = jinqJs()
.from([{"john" : 28},{ "bob": 34},{ "joe" : 4}])
.orderBy([{field: 0}])
.select();
Here's an implementation of OrderedMap.
Use the functions get() and set() to extract or push key value pairs to the OrderedMap.
It is internally using an array to maintain the order.
class OrderedMap {
constructor() {
this.arr = [];
return this;
}
get(key) {
for(let i=0;i<this.arr.length;i++) {
if(this.arr[i].key === key) {
return this.arr[i].value;
}
}
return undefined;
}
set(key, value) {
for(let i=0;i<this.arr.length;i++) {
if(this.arr[i].key === key) {
this.arr[i].value = value;
return;
}
}
this.arr.push({key, value})
}
values() {
return this.arr;
}
}
let m = new OrderedMap();
m.set('b', 60)
m.set('a', 10)
m.set('c', 20)
m.set('d', 89)
console.log(m.get('a'));
console.log(m.values());
https://github.com/js-sdsl/js-sdsl
The OrderedMap in Js-sdsl maybe helpful.
This is a sorted-map which implement refer to C++ STL Map.
/*
* key value
* 1 1
* 2 2
* 3 3
* Sorted by key.
*/
const mp = new OrderedMap(
[1, 2, 3].map((element, index) => [index, element])
);
mp.setElement(1, 2); // O(logn)
mp.eraseElementByKey(1) // O(logn)
// custom comparison function
mp = new OrderedMap(
[1, 2, 3].map((element, index) => [index, element]),
(x, y) => x - y
);
// enable tree iterator index (enableIndex = true)
console.log(new OrderedMap([[0, 1], [1, 1]], undefined, true).begin(),next().index); // 1
Can an array in JavaScript be associative AND indexed?
I'd like to be able to lookup an item in the array by its position or a key value.
There are no such things as associative arrays in Javascript. You can use object literals, which look like associative arrays, but they have unordered properties. Regular Javascript arrays are based on integer indexes, and can't be associative.
For example, with this object:
var params = {
foo: 1,
bar: 0,
other: 2
};
You can access properties from the object, for example:
params["foo"];
And you can also iterate over the object using the for...in statement:
for(var v in params) {
//v is equal to the currently iterated property
}
However, there is no strict rule on the order of property iteration - two iterations of your object literal could return the properties in different orders.
After reading the Wikipedia definition of associative array, I'm going to break with traditional JavaScript lore and say, "yes, JavaScript does have associative arrays." With JavaScript arrays, you can add, reassign, remove, and lookup values by their keys (and the keys can be quoted strings), which is what Wikipedia says associative arrays should be able to do.
However, you seem to be asking something different--whether you can look up the same value by either index or key. That's not a requirement of associative arrays (see the Wikipedia article.) Associative arrays don't have to give you the ability to get a value by index.
JavaScript arrays are very closely akin to JavaScript objects.
arr=[];
arr[0]="zero";
arr[1]="one";
arr[2]="two";
arr["fancy"]="what?";
Yes, that's an array, and yes, you can get away with non-numeric indices. (If you're curious, after all this, arr.length is 3.)
In most cases, I think you should stick to numeric indices when you use arrays. That what most programmers expect, I think.
The link is to my blog post about the subject.
Native JS objects only accept strings as property names, which is true even for numeric array indices; arrays differ from vanilla objects only insofar as most JS implementations will store numerically indexed properties differently (ie in an actual array as long as they are dense) and setting them will trigger additional operations (eg adjustment of the length property).
If you're looking for a map which accepts arbitrary keys, you'll have to use a non-native implementation. The script is intended for fast iteration and not random-access by numeric indices, so it might nor be what you're looking for.
A barebones implementation of a map which would do what you're asking for could look like this:
function Map() {
this.length = 0;
this.store = {};
}
Map.prototype.get = function(key) {
return this.store.hasOwnProperty(key) ?
this.store[key] : undefined;
};
Map.prototype.put = function(key, value, index) {
if(arguments.length < 3) {
if(this.store.hasOwnProperty(key)) {
this.store[key].value = value;
return this;
}
index = this.length;
}
else if(index >>> 0 !== index || index >= 0xffffffff)
throw new Error('illegal index argument');
if(index >= this.length)
this.length = index + 1;
this[index] = this.store[key] =
{ index : index, key : key, value : value };
return this;
};
The index argument of put() is optional.
You can access the values in a map map either by key or index via
map.get('key').value
map[2].value
var myArray = Array();
myArray["first"] = "Object1";
myArray["second"] = "Object2";
myArray["third"] = "Object3";
Object.keys(myArray); // returns ["first", "second", "third"]
Object.keys(myArray).length; // returns 3
if you want the first element then you can use it like so:
myArray[Object.keys(myArray)[0]]; // returns "Object1"
The order in which objects appear in an associative javascript array is not defined, and will differ across different implementations. For that reason you can't really count on a given associative key to always be at the same index.
EDIT:
as Perspx points out, there aren't really true associative arrays in javascript. The statement foo["bar"] is just syntactic sugar for foo.bar
If you trust the browser to maintain the order of elements in an object, you could write a function
function valueForIndex(obj, index) {
var i = 0;
for (var key in obj) {
if (i++ == index)
return obj[key];
}
}
var stuff = [];
stuff[0] = "foo";
stuff.bar = stuff[0]; // stuff.bar can be stuff["bar"] if you prefer
var key = "bar";
alert(stuff[0] + ", " + stuff[key]); // shows "foo, foo"
I came here to wanting to know if this is bad practice or not, and instead found a lot of people appearing not to understand the question.
I wanted to have a data structure that was ordered but could be indexed by key, so that it wouldn't require iteration for every lookup.
In practical terms this is quite simple, but I still haven't read anything on whether it's a terrible practice or not.
var roygbiv = [];
var colour = { key : "red", hex : "#FF0000" };
roygbiv.push(colour);
roygbiv[colour.key] = colour;
...
console.log("Hex colours of the rainbow in order:");
for (var i = 0; i < roygbiv.length; i++) {
console.log(roygbiv[i].key + " is " + roygbiv[i].hex);
}
// input = "red";
console.log("Hex code of input colour:");
console.log(roygbiv[input].hex);
The important thing is to never change the value of array[index] or array[key] directly once the object is set up or the values will no longer match. If the array contains objects you can change the properties of those objects and you will be able to access the changed properties by either method.
Although I agree with the answers given you can actually accomplish what you are saying with getters and setters. For example:
var a = [1];
//This makes a["blah"] refer to a[0]
a.__defineGetter__("blah", function(){return this[0]});
//This makes a["blah"] = 5 actually store 5 into a[0]
a.__defineSetter__("blah", function(val){ this[0] = val});
alert(a["blah"]); // emits 1
a["blah"] = 5;
alert(a[0]); // emits 5
Is this what you are looking for? i think theres a different more modern way to do getters and setters but cant remember.
The tide has changed on this one. Now you can do that... and MORE! Using Harmony Proxies you could definitely solve this problem in many ways.
You'll have to verify that your targeted environments support this with maybe a little help from the harmony-reflect shim.
There's a really good example on the Mozilla Developer Network on using a Proxy to find an array item object by it's property which pretty much sums it up.
Here's my version:
var players = new Proxy(
[{
name: 'monkey',
score: 50
}, {
name: 'giraffe',
score: 100
}, {
name: 'pelican',
score: 150
}], {
get: function(obj, prop) {
if (prop in obj) {
// default behavior
return obj[prop];
}
if (typeof prop == 'string') {
if (prop == 'rank') {
return obj.sort(function(a, b) {
return a.score > b.score ? -1 : 1;
});
}
if (prop == 'revrank') {
return obj.sort(function(a, b) {
return a.score < b.score ? -1 : 1;
});
}
var winner;
var score = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < obj.length; i++) {
var player = obj[i];
if (player.name == prop) {
return player;
} else if (player.score > score) {
score = player.score;
winner = player;
}
}
if (prop == 'winner') {
return winner;
}
return;
}
}
});
console.log(players[0]); // { name: 'monkey', score: 50 }
console.log(players['monkey']); // { name: 'monkey', score: 50 }
console.log(players['zebra']); // undefined
console.log(players.rank); // [ { name: 'pelican', score: 150 },{ name: 'giraffe', score: 100 }, { name: 'monkey', score: 50 } ]
console.log(players.revrank); // [ { name: 'monkey', score: 50 },{ name: 'giraffe', score: 100 },{ name: 'pelican', score: 150 } ]
console.log(players.winner); // { name: 'pelican', score: 150 }
The latest MDN documentation makes it quiet clear that Array index must be integers.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Array
let arr=[];
arr[0]="zero";
arr[1]="one";
arr[2]="two";
arr["fancy"]="what?";
//Arrays cannot use strings as element indexes (as in an associative array) but must use integers.
//Setting non-integers using bracket notation will not set an element to the Array List itself
//A non-integer will set a variable associated with that ARRAY Object property collection
let denseKeys = [...arr.keys()];
console.log(denseKeys);//[ 0, 1, 2 ]
console.log("ARRAY Keys:"+denseKeys.length);//3
let sparseKeys = Object.keys(arr);
console.log(sparseKeys);//[ '0', '1', '2', 'fancy' ]
console.log("Object Keys:"+sparseKeys.length);//4
const iterator = arr.keys();
for (const key of iterator) {
console.log(key);//0,1,2
}
Yes.
test = new Array();
test[0] = 'yellow';
test['banana'] = 0;
alert(test[test['banana']]);
Consider:
var object = {
foo: {},
bar: {},
baz: {}
}
How would I do this:
var first = object[0];
console.log(first);
Obviously, that doesn’t work because the first index is named foo,
not 0.
console.log(object['foo']);
works, but I don’t know it’s named foo. It could be named anything. I just want the first.
Just for fun this works in JS 1.8.5
var obj = {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3};
Object.keys(obj)[0]; // "a"
This matches the same order that you would see doing
for (o in obj) { ... }
If you want something concise try:
for (first in obj) break;
alert(first);
wrapped as a function:
function first(obj) {
for (var a in obj) return a;
}
they're not really ordered, but you can do:
var first;
for (var i in obj) {
if (obj.hasOwnProperty(i) && typeof(i) !== 'function') {
first = obj[i];
break;
}
}
the .hasOwnProperty() is important to ignore prototyped objects.
This will not give you the first one as javascript objects are unordered, however this is fine in some cases.
myObject[Object.keys(myObject)[0]]
If the order of the objects is significant, you should revise your JSON schema to store the objects in an array:
[
{"name":"foo", ...},
{"name":"bar", ...},
{"name":"baz", ...}
]
or maybe:
[
["foo", {}],
["bar", {}],
["baz", {}]
]
As Ben Alpert points out, properties of Javascript objects are unordered, and your code is broken if you expect them to enumerate in the same order that they are specified in the object literal—there is no "first" property.
for first key of object you can use
console.log(Object.keys(object)[0]);//print key's name
for value
console.log(object[Object.keys(object)[0]]);//print key's value
There is no way to get the first element, seeing as "hashes" (objects) in JavaScript have unordered properties. Your best bet is to store the keys in an array:
var keys = ["foo", "bar", "baz"];
Then use that to get the proper value:
object[keys[0]]
ES6
const [first] = Object.keys(obj)
Using underscore you can use _.pairs to get the first object entry as a key value pair as follows:
_.pairs(obj)[0]
Then the key would be available with a further [0] subscript, the value with [1]
I had the same problem yesterday. I solved it like this:
var obj = {
foo:{},
bar:{},
baz:{}
},
first = null,
key = null;
for (var key in obj) {
first = obj[key];
if(typeof(first) !== 'function') {
break;
}
}
// first is the first enumerated property, and key it's corresponding key.
Not the most elegant solution, and I am pretty sure that it may yield different results in different browsers (i.e. the specs says that enumeration is not required to enumerate the properties in the same order as they were defined). However, I only had a single property in my object so that was a non-issue. I just needed the first key.
You could do something like this:
var object = {
foo:{a:'first'},
bar:{},
baz:{}
}
function getAttributeByIndex(obj, index){
var i = 0;
for (var attr in obj){
if (index === i){
return obj[attr];
}
i++;
}
return null;
}
var first = getAttributeByIndex(object, 0); // returns the value of the
// first (0 index) attribute
// of the object ( {a:'first'} )
To get the first key of your object
const myObject = {
'foo1': { name: 'myNam1' },
'foo2': { name: 'myNam2' }
}
const result = Object.keys(myObject)[0];
// result will return 'foo1'
Based on CMS answer. I don't get the value directly, instead I take the key at its index and use this to get the value:
Object.keyAt = function(obj, index) {
var i = 0;
for (var key in obj) {
if ((index || 0) === i++) return key;
}
};
var obj = {
foo: '1st',
bar: '2nd',
baz: '3rd'
};
var key = Object.keyAt(obj, 1);
var val = obj[key];
console.log(key); // => 'bar'
console.log(val); // => '2nd'
My solution:
Object.prototype.__index = function(index)
{
var i = -1;
for (var key in this)
{
if (this.hasOwnProperty(key) && typeof(this[key])!=='function')
++i;
if (i >= index)
return this[key];
}
return null;
}
aObj = {'jack':3, 'peter':4, '5':'col', 'kk':function(){alert('hell');}, 'till':'ding'};
alert(aObj.__index(4));