I've found something that worked a faster to empty something when I
tested it.
function replaceHtml(el, html) {
var oldEl = typeof el === "string" ? document.getElementById(el) :
el;
if (oldEl == null) return null;
var newEl = oldEl.cloneNode(false);
newEl.innerHTML = html;
oldEl.parentNode.replaceChild(newEl, oldEl);
return newEl;
};
replaceHtml(Container_Id, '');
On Aug 26, 8:54 am, MorningZ <morni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "What is jQuery doing to empty an element?"
>
> That's so easy to see/find-out for yourself
>
> open up the jquery.js file, search for "emtpy" and voila
>
> empty: function() {
> // Remove element nodes and prevent memory leaks
> jQuery(this).children().remove();
>
> // Remove any remaining nodes
> while (this.firstChild)
> this.removeChild(this.firstChild);
> }
>
> "2. Are there any rules when not to use jQuery for certain DOM tasks
> but better to resort to direct DOM manipulation as in the example
> above? "
>
> One option that I've seen recommended a lot is to set the ".innerHTML"
> of the DOM object to empty string..... i remember that it's fast, but
> I can't remember if there were downsides to using that instead
>
> On Aug 26, 2:32 pm, oleOhle <mohleme...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > While writing my first jQuery application I encountered a performance
> > issue whichs casts doubts on the suitability of jQuery for my purposes
> > in general.
>
> > The "issue": In my page I have a dynamically filled <div> which in the
> > end contains about 10 elements, one of which is a table with 1000
> > rows. Now when I try to clear that <div> with a simple function like
>
> > function clearContainer() {
> > $('#' + Container_ID).empty();
>
> > }
>
> > this will take forever, i.e. one faster machine a few seconds, on my
> > netbook it even leads to javascript timeout errors.
>
> > Rewriting the function to
>
> > function clearContainer() {
> > var containerNode = document.getElementById(Container_ID);
> > while(containerNode.hasChildNodes()) {
> > containerNode.removeChild(containerNode.lastChild);
> > }
>
> > }
>
> > fixes the perfomance issue, the <div> is cleared almost immediately.
>
> > Two questions remain:
> > 1. How can the results be explained? What is jQuery doing to empty an
> > element?
> > 2. Are there any rules when not to use jQuery for certain DOM tasks
> > but better to resort to direct DOM manipulation as in the example
> > above?
>
>
