thanks, Leo.
Actually I just tried closing firebug, which could be much faster, so I
think it might be due to firebug itself raising the problem.
2009/3/26 Leonardo K <leo...@gmail.com>
> Maybe this question about performance should be ask in jQuery Dev Group. :D
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:36, Samuel <samuel.yh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hope get your helps.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Samuel <samuel.yh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> supplement more information on the issue.
>>>
>>> $('.words') have html data, ie, this node is not empty, so it must cost
>>> some time to remove the children.
>>>
>>> I made tens of tests, and the average of data() function time is around
>>> 500ms, which must be too high.
>>>
>>> It's possible for me to use a iframe to process this if load() usually
>>> consume so much time. the iframe costs around 120ms, which time for
>>> ajax(get) in jquery is around 100ms. so only another 20ms used for redering
>>> css in iframe without js codes added, which might cost a little more loading
>>> and examining time.
>>>
>>> I need to treat the time as a very critical factor, so there is no
>>> negotiation on the time.
>>>
>>> Any suggestion on how to improve the speed is hugely expected, but your
>>> suggestions are iframe are also strikingly hoped.
>>>
>>> Thanks again.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Samuel <samuel.yh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> recently I changed my ajax returned content format to html pieces, using
>>>> a load() function with an expect of time decreasing used for dom
>>>> manipulation.
>>>> On the contract, it could be even longer than the previous xml
>>>> processing time.
>>>>
>>>> After a debugging with firebug, I found the function data() consumes
>>>> most of time, 90% of the total one. Here's a quick illustration:
>>>>
>>>> data()16585.59%457.185ms457.185ms 2.771ms0.007ms11.215msjquery.js (line
>>>> 658)ajax() 12.86%15.267ms17.361ms17.361ms17.361ms17.361msjquery.js
>>>> (line 2583) fix()11.89%10.122ms10.122ms10.122ms10.122ms 10.122msjquery.js
>>>> (line 2092)merge() 291.6%8.554ms8.554ms0.295ms0.003ms6.079msjquery.js
>>>> (line 1155) classFilter()61.5%8.008ms8.008ms1.335ms 0.012ms4.04msjquery.js
>>>> (line 1657)remove()
>>>> 30.85%4.524ms451.542ms150.514ms7.582ms332.348msjquery.js
>>>> (line 1310) remove()710.8%4.268ms428.967ms6.042ms 6.166ms7.32msjquery.js
>>>> (line 1908)(?)() 20.68%3.633ms4.378ms2.189ms0.116ms4.262msjquery.js
>>>> (line 947) find()140.52%2.751ms19.985ms1.428ms0.14ms 10.527msjquery.js
>>>> (line 1464)append() 50.35%1.843ms1.843ms0.369ms0.04ms1.186msjquery.js
>>>> (line 237) removeData()1060.34%1.793ms1.793ms0.017ms
>>>> 0.011ms0.318msjquery.js
>>>> (line 684)init() 580.32%1.711ms24.058ms0.415ms0ms10.864ms
>>>> data() function consumed as much as 85% of time, strikingly beyond of my
>>>> expectation which should be less than 100ms.
>>>>
>>>> some code:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> renderLearning=function(nextUrl,node) {
>>>>
>>>> $('.words').load(nextUrl,function () {
>>>>
>>>> var word=$('#words h1').text();
>>>> $('#next_word').click(function () {
>>>> renderLearning($('#next_word').attr('href'));
>>>> return false;
>>>> })
>>>> $('#prev_word').click(function () {
>>>> renderLearning($('#prev_word').attr('href'));
>>>> return false;
>>>> })
>>>> })
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> your helps are highly appreciated. Thanks very much.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> --
>>>> Samuel(吴焱红)
>>>> Blog:http://wuyanhong.blogspot.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Samuel(吴焱红)
>>> Blog:http://wuyanhong.blogspot.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Samuel(吴焱红)
>> Blog:http://wuyanhong.blogspot.com
>>
>
>
--
Samuel(吴焱红)
Blog:http://wuyanhong.blogspot.com
