[jQuery] Re: follow up on real world speed test
That's a much better result, and more what I might expect. jQuery came in 3rd (1175) after Ext (585) and dojo (736). _ From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Benjamin Sterling Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:43 AM To: jquery-en Subject: [jQuery] follow up on real world speed test Hey guys and gals, Not sure if this is beating a dead horse, but per my suggestion on an earlier post, I decided to take a real site and using the SlickSpeed Selector Test, and test it out. I took the html from today's digg.com home page and changed the selectors to match it's content. I also added some full path selectors because I really did not know what would be faster, those are located toward the bottom of the list. With my new selectors, the test takes a bit longer, from start to finish it took about 2min 20 sec. I personally still don't get the li[class|=di], li[class~=digg-it], li[class*=igg], li[class$=it], li[class^=digg], I read the http://docs.jquery.com/Selectors page, but still don't get the full benefit of using them. Maybe someone can explain this to me. If anything, this at least shows me how I should be coding my jquery for faster dom selections. Link to speed test: http://www.kenzomedia.com/speedtest/ Link to page being tested: http://www.kenzomedia.com/speedtest/template.html -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com
[jQuery] Re: follow up on real world speed test
For me it was 2nd to last-only behind cssQuery. -Dan _ From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Matthews Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 1:19 PM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: follow up on real world speed test That's a much better result, and more what I might expect. jQuery came in 3rd (1175) after Ext (585) and dojo (736). _ From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Benjamin Sterling Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:43 AM To: jquery-en Subject: [jQuery] follow up on real world speed test Hey guys and gals, Not sure if this is beating a dead horse, but per my suggestion on an earlier post, I decided to take a real site and using the SlickSpeed Selector Test, and test it out. I took the html from today's digg.com home page and changed the selectors to match it's content. I also added some full path selectors because I really did not know what would be faster, those are located toward the bottom of the list. With my new selectors, the test takes a bit longer, from start to finish it took about 2min 20 sec. I personally still don't get the li[class|=di], li[class~=digg-it], li[class*=igg], li[class$=it], li[class^=digg], I read the http://docs.jquery.com/Selectors page, but still don't get the full benefit of using them. Maybe someone can explain this to me. If anything, this at least shows me how I should be coding my jquery for faster dom selections. Link to speed test: http://www.kenzomedia.com/speedtest/ Link to page being tested: http://www.kenzomedia.com/speedtest/template.html -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com
[jQuery] Re: follow up on real world speed test
For me: IE6 sp2: prototype 1.5.1jQuery 1.1.2devMooTools 1.2dev ext 1.1b1 cssQuery 2.02 dojo query 2587 1679 1816 8592119 884 FF2: prototype 1.5.1jQuery 1.1.2devMooTools 1.2dev ext 1.1b1 cssQuery 2.02 dojo query 3321001239 3611361 349 My question is, why the huge difference in times for each browser? Each ran separately with no other programs running. On 6/13/07, Dan G. Switzer, II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For me it was 2nd to last—only behind cssQuery. -Dan -- *From:* jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Andy Matthews *Sent:* Wednesday, June 13, 2007 1:19 PM *To:* jquery-en@googlegroups.com *Subject:* [jQuery] Re: follow up on real world speed test That's a much better result, and more what I might expect. jQuery came in 3rd (1175) after Ext (585) and dojo (736). -- *From:* jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Benjamin Sterling *Sent:* Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:43 AM *To:* jquery-en *Subject:* [jQuery] follow up on real world speed test Hey guys and gals, Not sure if this is beating a dead horse, but per my suggestion on an earlier post, I decided to take a real site and using the SlickSpeed Selector Test, and test it out. I took the html from today's digg.com home page and changed the selectors to match it's content. I also added some full path selectors because I really did not know what would be faster, those are located toward the bottom of the list. With my new selectors, the test takes a bit longer, from start to finish it took about 2min 20 sec. I personally still don't get the li[class|=di], li[class~=digg-it], li[class*=igg], li[class$=it], li[class^=digg], I read the http://docs.jquery.com/Selectors page, but still don't get the full benefit of using them. Maybe someone can explain this to me. If anything, this at least shows me how I should be coding my jquery for faster dom selections. Link to speed test: http://www.kenzomedia.com/speedtest/ Link to page being tested: http://www.kenzomedia.com/speedtest/template.html -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com
[jQuery] Re: follow up on real world speed test
Dan G. Switzer, II wrote on 6/13/2007 10:45 AM: For me it was 2nd to last-only behind cssQuery. Same here using Win/FF2.0.0.4: MooTools 1.2dev 226 prototype 1.5.1 251 dojo query358 ext 1.1b1 511 jQuery 1.1.2dev 1100 cssQuery 2.021965 - Bil
[jQuery] Re: follow up on real world speed test
I ran Benjamin's test (http://www.kenzomedia.com/speedtest/) FF2: prototype 1.5.1jQuery 1.1.2devMooTools 1.2dev ext 1.1b1 cssQuery 2.02 dojo query 235671167 3531127 297 IE 7: prototype 1.5.1jQuery 1.1.2devMooTools 1.2dev ext 1.1b1 cssQuery 2.02 dojo query 688493691 235788 322 2nd to last in FF 2.0.0.4 3rd overall in IE 7 Rey... Benjamin Sterling wrote: For me: IE6 sp2: prototype 1.5.1jQuery 1.1.2devMooTools 1.2dev ext 1.1b1 cssQuery 2.02 dojo query 2587 1679 1816 8592119 884 FF2: prototype 1.5.1jQuery 1.1.2devMooTools 1.2dev ext 1.1b1 cssQuery 2.02 dojo query 3321001 2393611361 349 My question is, why the huge difference in times for each browser? Each ran separately with no other programs running. On 6/13/07, *Dan G. Switzer, II * [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For me it was 2^nd to last—only behind cssQuery. -Dan *From:* jquery-en@googlegroups.com mailto:jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:jquery-en@googlegroups.com mailto:jquery-en@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andy Matthews *Sent:* Wednesday, June 13, 2007 1:19 PM *To:* jquery-en@googlegroups.com mailto:jquery-en@googlegroups.com *Subject:* [jQuery] Re: follow up on real world speed test That's a much better result, and more what I might expect. jQuery came in 3rd (1175) after Ext (585) and dojo (736). *From:* jquery-en@googlegroups.com mailto:jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:jquery-en@googlegroups.com mailto:jquery-en@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Benjamin Sterling *Sent:* Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:43 AM *To:* jquery-en *Subject:* [jQuery] follow up on real world speed test Hey guys and gals, Not sure if this is beating a dead horse, but per my suggestion on an earlier post, I decided to take a real site and using the SlickSpeed Selector Test, and test it out. I took the html from today's digg.com http://digg.com home page and changed the selectors to match it's content. I also added some full path selectors because I really did not know what would be faster, those are located toward the bottom of the list. With my new selectors, the test takes a bit longer, from start to finish it took about 2min 20 sec. I personally still don't get the li[class|=di], li[class~=digg-it], li[class*=igg], li[class$=it], li[class^=digg], I read the http://docs.jquery.com/Selectors page, but still don't get the full benefit of using them. Maybe someone can explain this to me. If anything, this at least shows me how I should be coding my jquery for faster dom selections. Link to speed test: http://www.kenzomedia.com/speedtest/ Link to page being tested: http://www.kenzomedia.com/speedtest/template.html -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com -- BrightLight Development, LLC. 954-775- (o) 954-600-2726 (c) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.iambright.com
[jQuery] Re: follow up on real world speed test
Benjamin, Which version of jQuery did you use in the tests? If its v1.1.2 that came with the test suite, can you add v1.1.3 from SVN to see if there's any difference? There should be since the selector speed was improved in v1.1.3. Thanks, Rey... mailto:jquery-en@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Benjamin Sterling *Sent:* Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:43 AM *To:* jquery-en *Subject:* [jQuery] follow up on real world speed test Hey guys and gals, Not sure if this is beating a dead horse, but per my suggestion on an earlier post, I decided to take a real site and using the SlickSpeed Selector Test, and test it out. I took the html from today's digg.com http://digg.com home page and changed the selectors to match it's content. I also added some full path selectors because I really did not know what would be faster, those are located toward the bottom of the list. With my new selectors, the test takes a bit longer, from start to finish it took about 2min 20 sec. I personally still don't get the li[class|=di], li[class~=digg-it], li[class*=igg], li[class$=it], li[class^=digg], I read the http://docs.jquery.com/Selectors page, but still don't get the full benefit of using them. Maybe someone can explain this to me. If anything, this at least shows me how I should be coding my jquery for faster dom selections. Link to speed test: http://www.kenzomedia.com/speedtest/ Link to page being tested: http://www.kenzomedia.com/speedtest/template.html -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com -- BrightLight Development, LLC. 954-775- (o) 954-600-2726 (c) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.iambright.com
[jQuery] Re: follow up on real world speed test
Rey, Taken care of. The version that was up there was $Date: 2007-04-28 11:33:25 -0400 (Sat, 28 Apr 2007) $ $Rev: 1809 $ There is an over all upgrade in speed, but there are somethings that are slower. (FF2) jQuery 1.1.3a jQuery 1.1.2dev MooTools 1.2dev ext 1.1b1cssQuery 2.02dojo query 931 1 044 264 4361495 373 I took out prototype to make room for 1.1.3 It looked to get worse on these: div.news-body div.news-details a.tool (1.1.3) 8 ms | 45 found ( 1.1.2) 4 ms | 45 found .news-summary .news-body .news-details .tool (1.1.3) 137 ms | 60 found (1.1.2) 43 ms | 60 found but better on: .news-summary .news-body div.news-details a.tool (1.1.3) 27 ms | 45 found (1.1.2)129 ms | 45 found div.news-summary div.news-body div.news-details a.tool (1.1.3) 8 ms | 45 found (1.1.2)12 ms | 45 found Which version of jQuery did you use in the tests? If its v1.1.2 that came with the test suite, can you add v1.1.3 from SVN to see if there's any difference? There should be since the selector speed was improved in v1.1.3. -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com
[jQuery] Re: follow up on real world speed test
You should leave prototype in though...it's one of the main contenders. If anything, I'd take out 1.1.2.dev. _ From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Benjamin Sterling Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 1:49 PM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: follow up on real world speed test Rey, Taken care of. The version that was up there was $Date: 2007-04-28 11:33:25 -0400 (Sat, 28 Apr 2007) $ $Rev: 1809 $ There is an over all upgrade in speed, but there are somethings that are slower. (FF2) jQuery 1.1.3a jQuery 1.1.2dev MooTools 1.2dev ext 1.1b1cssQuery 2.02dojo query 931 1 044 264 436 1495 373 I took out prototype to make room for 1.1.3 It looked to get worse on these: div.news-body div.news-details a.tool (1.1.3) 8 ms | 45 found (1.1.2) 4 ms | 45 found .news-summary .news-body .news-details .tool (1.1.3) 137 ms | 60 found (1.1.2) 43 ms | 60 found but better on: .news-summary .news-body div.news-details a.tool (1.1.3) 27 ms | 45 found (1.1.2)129 ms | 45 found div.news-summary div.news-body div.news-details a.tool (1.1.3 ) 8 ms | 45 found (1.1.2)12 ms | 45 found Which version of jQuery did you use in the tests? If its v1.1.2 that came with the test suite, can you add v1.1.3 from SVN to see if there's any difference? There should be since the selector speed was improved in v1.1.3. -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com
[jQuery] Re: follow up on real world speed test
I'm getting errors in FireBug since you've updated it. It won't run. Also, could you reinclude PT and remove cssQuery? I'd like to see the speeds of the top performers in comparison to jQuery. I really appreciate you doing this. :) Rey Rey Bango wrote: Benjamin, Which version of jQuery did you use in the tests? If its v1.1.2 that came with the test suite, can you add v1.1.3 from SVN to see if there's any difference? There should be since the selector speed was improved in v1.1.3. Thanks, Rey... mailto:jquery-en@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Benjamin Sterling *Sent:* Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:43 AM *To:* jquery-en *Subject:* [jQuery] follow up on real world speed test Hey guys and gals, Not sure if this is beating a dead horse, but per my suggestion on an earlier post, I decided to take a real site and using the SlickSpeed Selector Test, and test it out. I took the html from today's digg.com http://digg.com home page and changed the selectors to match it's content. I also added some full path selectors because I really did not know what would be faster, those are located toward the bottom of the list. With my new selectors, the test takes a bit longer, from start to finish it took about 2min 20 sec. I personally still don't get the li[class|=di], li[class~=digg-it], li[class*=igg], li[class$=it], li[class^=digg], I read the http://docs.jquery.com/Selectors page, but still don't get the full benefit of using them. Maybe someone can explain this to me. If anything, this at least shows me how I should be coding my jquery for faster dom selections. Link to speed test: http://www.kenzomedia.com/speedtest/ Link to page being tested: http://www.kenzomedia.com/speedtest/template.html -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com -- BrightLight Development, LLC. 954-775- (o) 954-600-2726 (c) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.iambright.com
[jQuery] Re: follow up on real world speed test
K, I took out cssQuery and put PT back in. Rey, I had that same issue, what fixed it was clearing cache and refreshing. On 6/13/07, Rey Bango [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm getting errors in FireBug since you've updated it. It won't run. Also, could you reinclude PT and remove cssQuery? I'd like to see the speeds of the top performers in comparison to jQuery. I really appreciate you doing this. :) Rey -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com
[jQuery] Re: follow up on real world speed test
Give me a min, something got screwed up. On 6/13/07, Benjamin Sterling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: K, I took out cssQuery and put PT back in. Rey, I had that same issue, what fixed it was clearing cache and refreshing. On 6/13/07, Rey Bango [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm getting errors in FireBug since you've updated it. It won't run. Also, could you reinclude PT and remove cssQuery? I'd like to see the speeds of the top performers in comparison to jQuery. I really appreciate you doing this. :) Rey -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com
[jQuery] Re: follow up on real world speed test
Still no dice, even after clearing the cache. I still get the same 2 errors at startup: unterminated string literal [Break on this error] window.selectors = ['*\n speedtest (line 11) iterable has no properties forEach(undefined, function(), undefined)slickspeed.js (line 4) onload()slickspeed.js (line 49) [Break on this error] for (var i = 0, j = iterable.length; i j; i++) fn.call(bind, iterable[i], i, ... slickspeed.js (line 4) Rey... Benjamin Sterling wrote: K, I took out cssQuery and put PT back in. Rey, I had that same issue, what fixed it was clearing cache and refreshing. On 6/13/07, *Rey Bango* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm getting errors in FireBug since you've updated it. It won't run. Also, could you reinclude PT and remove cssQuery? I'd like to see the speeds of the top performers in comparison to jQuery. I really appreciate you doing this. :) Rey -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com -- BrightLight Development, LLC. 954-775- (o) 954-600-2726 (c) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.iambright.com
[jQuery] Re: follow up on real world speed test
Sorry about that, apparently the selector list needs to be only edited in notepad. I have it up and running. -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com
