On 17/08/07, Rob Desbois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does anyone know offhand how much overhead using .add() instead of the comma > incurs? > Is it just the additional function call? > --rob
It is likely to be an additional function call or two, so the difference is negligible. If you have the Firebug extension (http://getfirebug.com/) for Firefox you can time this kind of stuff. It's not perfect, but on http://docs.jquery.com/Main_Page the following code: --- var count = 100; console.time('comma'); for ( var i = 0; i < count; i++ ) $('h1,h2'); console.timeEnd('comma'); console.time('.add()'); for ( var i = 0; i < count; i++ ) $('h1').add('h2'); console.timeEnd('.add()'); --- ...produced the following times: comma: 76ms .add(): 89ms comma: 77ms .add(): 89ms comma: 76ms .add(): 88ms (I usually run profiling code like this several times as results can sometimes vary). --- So yeah, ~12ms difference when called 100 times - negligible. It's down to your personal preference I guess. -- Best wishes, Dave Cardwell. http://davecardwell.co.uk/javascript/jquery/
