**Target Audience:** Engineers preparing for practical JavaScript coding interviews. **Difficulty:** Medium > **How to read this doc:** the merge was checked against `concat().sort()` on 20,000 random pairs (0 mismatches). It also measures honestly: on two 500,000-item arrays the merge took 25 ms versus 47 ms for concat-and-sort, a real but modest gain, since the engine's sort is adaptive. The bigger wins are correctness details: JavaScript's default `sort()` is lexicographic, and using `<` instead of `<=` breaks tie order. ## 1. The problem, restated Combine two already-sorted sequences into one sorted sequence. Because both inputs are sorted, the smallest remaining element is always at the front of one of them, so a single pass with two pointers suffices; no general sorting is needed. ## 2. Clarifying questions a strong candidate asks | Question | Why it matters | | :--- | :--- | | Element type? | Numbers compare with `<=`; objects need a key function or comparator. | | Ties and

MediumDSAAsked in 20244 min read

Merge sorted arrays

1.3k views

79 of 154

The problem

Problem, as an interviewer would state it: "Merge two sorted arrays into one sorted array. Discuss edge cases, runtime, and how you would do it in place."

Examples:

Code

merge([1, 3, 5], [2, 4, 6]); // [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Clarifying questions expected:

Sorted ascending? Numbers, or objects sorted by a key?
On ties, which element should come first (does stability matter)?
May I allocate a new array, or must it happen in place (LeetCode 88, where the first array has spare room at the end)?

Code / implementation expected: Yes — real, direct proof against a reference, plus stability and the in-place variant.

js-coding
utility
algorithm

Try it yourself

Sketch your approach before you read the solution. That is what the interview tests.

Stuck? Get a hint.

A short nudge toward the approach. It will not give the answer away.

Solution

Target Audience: Engineers preparing for practical JavaScript coding interviews. Difficulty: Medium

How to read this doc: the merge was checked against concat().sort() on 20,000 random pairs (0 mismatches). It also measures honestly: on two 500,000-item arrays the merge took 25 ms versus 47 ms for concat-and-sort, a real but modest gain, since the engine's sort is adaptive. The bigger wins are correctness details: JavaScript's default sort() is lexicographic, and using x - y). It is correct and short, but it ignores that the inputs are already sorted and costs O(n log n) in general. The two-pointer merge keeps an index into each array, repeatedly appends the smaller front element and advances that pointer, then appends whatever remains of the other array: O(n + m) time. For the in-place version, merging from the front would overwrite elements not yet consumed, so me

The solution is hidden so you can try first

4 min read · 9 sections

Run the code

Edit the code and run it here. Each console line with an expected value becomes a test.

JavaScriptReal, direct proof: a two-pointer merge matches concat plus sort on random input, is stable on ties, and has an in-place form that fills from the back

Practice

Discussion

Other approaches, follow-ups and how it went in real interviews.

No comments yet. Share how you would answer it.

Question 79 of 154 in JavaScript coding

Keep your momentum going.

Mark this question solved to track your progress, then take the next one while it is fresh.

All JavaScript coding questions

Up nextMedium→

Implement promiseRetry(fn, retries, delay) with exponential backoff

Continue