Hi there, and thanks for the reply.
Actually there is no visible bottleneck yet and I can't really point
it out since the javascript behind the app is massive and it results
in poor performance under Opera (which is very strange, since its the
fastest browser supporting JS) .
However I was wondering about ways that the performance can be
improved ad that was generally where I suggested the solution and
basing on Your opinion it should work.
If there are any other opinions/suggestions I'd be glad to hear them.
Thanks in advance
Best regards!
On 11 Lut, 01:55, J Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can profile javascript with firebug and see total calls for
> different approaches and how long they take.
>
> That said, $('#id') is fast, since it is basically getElementById() a
> native javascript method. However, if you call $('#id') 100x, you'll
> see that it's faster to cache it in a variable. e.g
>
> var id = $('#id');
> for (i=0;i<100;i++) {
> id.append("<p>number "+i+"</p>");
>
> }
>
> what is the bottleneck in your code?
>
> -j
>
> On Feb 10, 6:12 pm, Michal Popielnicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi there!
>
> > I've been dealing with some performance clean-up of a code of a web-
> > app that I wrote and I was wondering if jQuery does caching of the DOM
> > references. Lets say I have a function:
>
> > function myFunction(){
> > $('#foo').attr("bar");
>
> > }
>
> > I frequently refer to the function, so is it the case that each time I
> > launch it, the DOM is scanned for element with "foo" id? Or maybe this
> > reference is somehow cached?
>
> > If its not, then maybe doing something like this would speed up the
> > code execution:
>
> > function DomLinker(){
> > this.foo = $('#foo').attr("bar");
>
> > function myFunction(){
> > domMember.foo.attr("bar");}
>
> > $(document).ready(
> > domMember = new DomLinker();
>
> > }
>
> > Please keep in mind that we talk about case of many executions of
> > myFunction
>
> > Please share your thoughts on this one.
>
> > Best regards
