Of course, FF 3.1 includes querySelectorAll:
http://ejohn.org/blog/queryselectorall-in-firefox-31/
And in fact, there is a slight bug in Sizzle here, causing it to not
use that version when not sending in an explicit 2:nd argument:
Sizzle("...", document)
The problem is here:
if ( document.querySelectorAll ) (function(){
var oldSizzle = Sizzle;
Sizzle = function(query, context, extra){
if ( context === document ) {
try {
return makeArray(context.querySelectorAll(query));
} catch(e){}
}
return oldSizzle(query, context, extra);
};
Sizzle.find = oldSizzle.find;
Sizzle.filter = oldSizzle.filter;
})();
Cheers,
/Per
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Arnar Birgisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 15:52, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's... odd. Are there any selectors that are noticeably faster?
>
> Yes, it seems that nested queries are to blame. By nested queries I
> mean queries that uses the axis combinator, either the implicit
> "descendant" axis (like "div p") or an explicit axis combinator such
> as ~, > or +.
>
> "div ~ p" is 2ms on MK+Sizzle vs. 13ms on Sizzle.
> "div p" is 2ms on MK+Sizzle vs. 4ms on Sizzle.
> "div > p" is 1ms vs. 3ms
> "div + p" is 1ms vs. 5ms
> "div p a" is 1ms vs. 8ms
>
> Also, a[href][lang][class] is 1ms vs. 9ms.
>
>> Maybe something is failing?
>
> I don't think so, at least the number of elements returned by each is
> the same in every test.
>
> You can run the test benchmark yourself here:
> http://www.hvergi.net/arnar/public/sizzle/speed/
>
> cheers,
> Arnar
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"MochiKit" group.
To post to this group, send email to mochikit@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/mochikit?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
