This article will present ten easy steps that will instantly improve your script's performance. Don't worry; there isn't anything too difficult here. Everyone can apply these methods! When you're finished reading, please let us know your speed tips.
1. Always Use the Latest Version
jQuery is in constant development and improvement. John and his team are always researching new ways to improve program performances. As a sidenote, just a few months ago, he released Sizzle, a selector library that's said to improve program performances up to 3 times in Firefox.
If you want to stay up to date without having to download the library a thousand times, GIYF (Google Is Your Friend), in this situation too. Google provides a lot of Ajax libraries from which to choose.
<!-- get the API with a simple script tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.google.com/jsapi"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
/* and load minified jQuery v1.3.2 this way */
google.load ("jquery", "1.3.2", {uncompressed: false});
/* this is to display a message box
when the page is loaded */
function onLoad () {
alert ("jQuery + Google API!");
}
google.setOnLoadCallback (onLoad);
</script>
* Editor's Note: Perhaps, the quicker and easier method is to simply link to the script directly. Rather than hard-coding the specific version of jQuery directly (1.3.2), you should instead use 1, which will automatically reference the most recent version of the library.
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1/jquery.js"></script>
2. Combine and Minify Your Scripts
The majority of browsers are not able to process more than one script concurrently so they queue them up -- and load times increase. Assuming the scripts are to be loaded on every page of your website, you should consider putting them all into a single file and use a compression tool (such as Dean Edwards') to minify them. Smaller file sizes equal faster load times.
The goal of JavaScript and CSS minification is always to preserve the operational qualities of the code while reducing its overall byte footprint (both in raw terms and after gzipping, as most JavaScript and CSS served from production web servers is gzipped as part of the HTTP protocol). -- From YUI compressor, an excellent tool jQuery officially reccomends to minify scripts.
3. Use For Instead of Each
Native functions are always faster than any helper counterparts. Whenever you're looping through an object received as JSON, you'd better rewrite your JSON and make it return an array through which you can loop easier.
Using Firebug, it's possible to measure the time each of the two functions takes to run.
var array = new Array ();
for (var i=0; i<10000; i++) {
array[i] = 0;
}
console.time('native');
var l = array.length;
for (var i=0;i<l; i++) {
array[i] = i;
}
console.timeEnd('native');
console.time('jquery');
$.each (array, function (i) {
array[i] = i;
});
console.timeEnd('jquery');
The above results are 2ms for native code, and 26ms for jQuery's "each" method. Provided I tested it on my local machine and they're not actually doing anything (just a mere array filling operation), jQuery's each function takes over 10 times as long as JS native "for" loop. This will certainly increase when dealing with more complicated stuff, like setting CSS attributes or other DOM manipulation operations.
4. Use IDs Instead of Classes
It's much better to select objects by ID because of the library's behavior: jQuery uses the browser's native method, getElementByID(), to retrieve the object, resulting in a very fast query.
So, instead of using the very handy class selection technique, it's worth using a more complex selector (which jQuery certainly doesn't fail to provide), write your own selector (yes, this is possible, if you don't find what you need), or specify a container for the element you need to select.
// Example creating a list and filling it with items
// and selecting each item once
console.time('class');
var list = $('#list');
var items = '<ul>';
for (i=0; i<1000; i++) {
items += '<li class="item' + i + '">item</li>';
}
items += '</ul>';
list.html (items);
for (i=0; i<1000; i++) {
var s = $('.item' + i);
}
console.timeEnd('class');
console.time('id');
var list = $('#list');
var items = '<ul>';
for (i=0; i<1000; i++) {
items += '<li id="item' + i + '">item</li>';
}
items += '</ul>';
list.html (items);
for (i=0; i<1000; i++) {
var s = $('#item' + i);
}
console.timeEnd('id');
The above code really shows the differences between the two ways of selecting elements, highlighting a never-ending over 5 seconds time to load the class driven snippet.
5. Give your Selectors a Context
As stated in jQuery's documentation,
The DOM node context originally passed to jQuery() (if none was passed then context will be equal to the document). It should be used in conjunction with the selector to determine the exact query used.
So, if you must use classes to target your elements, at least prevent jQuery from traversing the whole DOM using selectors appropriately.
Instead of
$('.class').css ('color' '#123456');
always go for contextualized selectors in the form:
$(expression, context)
thus yielding
$('.class', '#class-container').css ('color', '#123456');
which runs much faster, because it doesn't have to traverse the entire DOM -- just the #class-container element.
6. Cache. ALWAYS.
Do not make the mistake or reusing your selectors time and time again. Instead, you should cache it in a variable. That way, the DOM doesn't have to track down your element over and over again.
Never select elements multiple times inside a loop EVER! It'd be a speed-killer!
$('#item').css ('color', '#123456');
$('#item').html ('hello');
$('#item').css ('background-color', '#ffffff');
// you could use this instead
$('#item').css ('color', '#123456').html ('hello').css ('background-color', '#ffffff');
// or even
var item = $('#item');
item.css ('color', '#123456');
item.html ('hello');
item.css ('background-color', '#ffffff');
// as for loops, this is a big no-no
console.time('no cache');
for (var i=0; i<1000; i++) {
$('#list').append (i);
}
console.timeEnd('no cache');
// much better this way
console.time('cache');
var item = $('#list');
for (var i=0; i<1000; i++) {
item.append (i);
}
console.timeEnd('cache');
And, as the following chart exemplifies, the results of caching are evident even in relatively short iterations.
7. Avoid DOM Manipulation
DOM manipulation should be as limited as possible, since insert operations like prepend(), append(), after() are rather time-consuming.
The above example could be quickened using html() and building the list beforehand.
var list = '';
for (var i=0; i<1000; i++) {
list += '<li>'+i+'</li>';
}
('#list').html (list);
8. No String concat(); Use join() for Longer Strings
It might appear strange, but this really helps to speed things, especially when dealing with long strings of text that need to be concatenated.
First create an array and fill it with what you have to join together. The join() method will prove much faster than the string concat() function.
var array = [];
for (var i=0; i<=10000; i++) {
array[i] = '<li>'+i+'</li>';
}
$('#list').html (array.join (''));
However, recent tests conducted by Tom Trenka contributed to the creation of the following chart.
"The += operator is faster—even more than pushing string fragments into an array and joining them at the last minute" and "An array as a string buffer is more efficient on all browsers, with the exception of Firefox 2.0.0.14/Windows, than using String.prototype.concat.apply." -- Tom Trenka
9. Return False
You may have noticed whenever your functions don't return false, you jump to the top of the page. When dealing with longer pages, this result can be quite annoying.
So, instead of
$('#item').click (function () {
// stuff here
});
take the time to write
$('#item').click (function () {
// stuff here
return false;
});
10. Bonus tip - Cheat-sheets and Library References
This isn't a speed up tip, but could end up, in a round about way, being one if you take the time to find your way through cheatsheets and function references. Save yourself some time and keep a cheat-sheet within an arm's reach.
- Follow us on Twitter, or subscribe to the NETTUTS RSS Feed for more daily web development tuts and articles.
Related Posts
Check out some more great tutorials and articles that you might like
Plus Members
Source Files, Bonus Tutorials and
More for $9 a month for all TUTS+
sites in one subscription.
User Comments
( ADD YOURS )Caroline Schnapp June 23rd
Which is faster:
Using context
$(’.class’, ‘#class-container’).css (’color’, ‘#123456′);
Or using descendant selector
$(’#class-container .class’).css (’color’, ‘#123456′);
( )Swapnil Sarwe June 23rd
AS per my knowledge, 1st one should be faster, considering the fact, we are specifying the context and the expression as 2 different parameters.
In 2nd case the complete string ’#class-container .class’ is an expression which jQuery then evaluates to find the class-container being an id and .class being an class inside the element with id ‘class-container’.
Still would like to hear from the experts.
( )Paul Irish June 23rd
$(’#class-container .class’)
would be faster. The most obvious reason is that browsers that have querySelectorAll can do that in one pass, vs selecting the context element and then selecting your target within it.
Context should only be used when you already have a DOM reference. Typically:
$(’.class’,this)
If you’re passing in a string or you’re doing something that looks like this:
$(’.class’,$(’#container’))
then you, my friend, are doing it wrong.
Yuriy June 23rd
I think faster would be this code:
$(’#class-container’).find(’.class’).css (’color’, ‘#123456′);
What you think?
Emmett Pickerel June 24th
I ran a test in FF3 in a small page (2.5k — I actually just used the Sizzle homepage). I put the ID “hd” on a UL and the class “myclass” on a child LI. These were my tests (5000 iterations):
$(”.myclass”);
$(”#hd .myclass”);
$(”.myclass”, “#hd”);
These were the results:
.myclass: 1041ms
#hd .myclass: 1697ms
.myclass, #hd: 1176ms
So, Swapnil is correct. BUT… what is surprising is that jquery’s className lookup is FASTER (every time) than getting it by context. I tried it again with a larger page (this one, actually, at 95k), and got slightly more expected results:
.myclass: 1722
#hd .myclass: 2382
.myclass, #hd: 1169
The middle one is still the slowest by a good margin. Seems as though starting your selector with an ID is a BIG no-no.
I’d also suggest, instead of $(”#mydiv”), use $(document.getElementById(”mydiv”);. My speed tests showed the latter to be more than twice as fast in FF3:
$(”#mydiv”): 189
$( document.getElementById(”mydiv”) ): 72
James June 24th
The actions involved with the first technique (with context):
1 – Get element with an ID of “class-container” (the context)
2 – Get ALL elements within that context
3 – Filter out the ones that DON’T have a class of ‘class’
And the second:
1 – Get ALL elements on the page (this takes a while)
2 – Filter out the ones that DON’T have a class of ‘class’
3 – On each element, step up the DOM to check that an ancestor has an ID of “class-container” – remove those that don’t.
.. Two very different approaches. In this situation, the first technique is quicker. Also, speed will vary across browsers… For example, browsers that support getElementsByClassName() will do better (the first two steps for the second technique can be merged in such browsers).
( )choise June 23rd
great !
( )Sunny June 23rd
Event delegation can improve jQuery performance too…
Bad
$(’#myId’).click(function(){
$(this).css(’background’, ‘black’);
});
Good
( )$(’#myId’).click(function(e) {
var clicked = $(e.target);
clicked.css(’background’, ‘black’);
});
Dimas June 28th
very true … helps with memory consumption as well as avoids reassigning events with dynamic elements …
( )Elijah Manor June 23rd
You should put your javascript at the bottom of the page
http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#js_bottom
( )Sunny June 23rd
True..
( )Myfacefriends June 23rd
that was true again….
( )André June 23rd
I still think that using is the best way to handle that.
The only problem is that jquery uses document.write for simulating DOMContentLoaded on IE. (not good!, I hope they change that soon)
Jamis Charles June 24th
I think it depends more on how important your script is to the page. You may want to approach it differently if your page depend on JS.
http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/first-look-at-javascript/#wheretoputjavascript
( )Dimas June 28th
again very true … check out …
http://code.google.com/speed/articles/include-scripts-properly.html
and
http://stevesouders.com/cuzillion/
simple things like moving scripts and inline scripts to the bottom will make your page load much faster …
( )Tim Gieseking June 23rd
So, with #1, does anyone worry about the latest version of jQuery breaking whatever plugin they are using? It just seems like a risky move on a production site.
( )George Huger June 23rd
Absolutely, it WILL cause you trouble down the road. Including the latest version of jQuery is HORRIBLE advice, and should be removed from this post immediately.
jQuery routinely changes fundamental aspects of the library between versions (such as deprecating the @ selector). If you’ve included the latest version of jQuery in a client’s live website I highly suggest you change to a specific version right away, and test thoroughly to make sure existing functionality is still working.
We wrote a blog post on this recently, after upgrading from jQuery 1.2 -> jQuery 1.3 broke our website:
http://illuminatikarate.com/blog/relative-offsets-are-handled-differently-between-versions-of-jquery/
( )Dimas June 28th
I agree with you that you should not always be updating your production site to the latest version. You should basically do it only if you need a new feature or you need a bug fix, and even then it should be done with care.
They way i took the first recommendation was that your projects should always START with the latest version.
peewee1002 June 24th
I do, the latest version doesn’ work with one of my lightboxes so i have to keep the old one,
I do not make my owb plugins though and couldn’t get around it.
i have started to put my scripts at the bottom though,
( )Shane June 24th
Yep, I’ve had countless issues with plugins and updating jQuery versions.
For performance reasons, the latest version may be fastest, but you’re right when you say you need to be careful about plugins.
( )Steve Love June 24th
You’re right, Tim. I’ve seen this break plugins on a site when they haven’t been updated against the latest version of jQuery. As George Huger reports in his comment, deprecated code in plugins is the biggest factor. The @ selector in particular causes the Thickbox plugin to break in jQuery 1.3.2. Fortunately it’s a simple fix in that case.
Linking to Google’s jQuery source is a good idea. It’s like getting a free CDN. However, I would not follow the Editor’s note to automatically reference the latest version on a production site. You should instead specify a reference to the latest possible version that you’ve tested against. On the other hand, if you’re keeping up with the jQuery beta releases, this might not present an issue.
( )Nick June 23rd
Good stuff, as always!!
( )James June 23rd
In regard to #3 I’m a tad confused… Just did the test locally and the time difference is marginal if not non-existent. Also, how should “local” or “online” make any difference!?
( )Sunny June 23rd
“how should local or online make any difference!?”
It will not make any difference, coz JS is a client side script..
( )James June 23rd
When why did the author include both on the graph…
Giulio June 24th
The two graphs are to show the delay you’d have because of conection; even if JS is client side, I think the code feels the effect of the issue.
Also, I was a bit surpriesd too, when I noticed my two times (calculated with console.time) were different.
James June 23rd
Also, how does returning false increase performance?
( )Sunny June 23rd
em.. suppose your html is like as follows
Click event
$(’#clickMe’).click (function () {
( )// as if no “return false” your page will jump to top
});
Sunny June 23rd
i meant to say that your functions don’t return false, you jump to the top of the page because of the hash#
P.S how to write html in the comment ?
James June 23rd
Yes, and how does that improve performance? I’m being rhetorical.. – I’m just curious why the author put that in there.
Michael Thompson June 24th
This is also wrong, if you’re using jQuery. Some browsers will not handle “return false” properly — sometimes it’ll bubble up the event stack, other times it’ll just be ignored.
If you’re using jQuery you should be using “e.preventDefault();” instead of “return false”. Otherwise, you’re doing it wrong.
Sunny June 23rd
oh ya you are right, returning false has nothing to do with performance issues..
( )Swapnil Sarwe June 23rd
Well I cant really say for 100% sure that my conclusion is right, still…
As per functions in JS are concerned, they always return something, if nothing is specified, it returns undefined.
Since After the function call JS interpreter always waits for the return value, its nice that it gets false which is a proper boolean value, rather than undefined which tells nothing about what is returned.
And may be the interpreter shares a part of second analyzing undefined, which it wont spend when false is returned, b’coz it knows what false means.
Giulio June 24th
Yes, I included it for the reason Swapnil Sarwe mentioned
James June 28th
@Swapnil; an interesting take on the issue but explicitly returning something WILL NOT improve performance… Plus, it’s just a strange tip… If a function needs to return something then let it otherwise there’s no benefit; JavaScript returns UNDEFINED by default.
It’s like saying, always use single quotes instead of double quotes because they’re specified earlier in the charset… makes no sense.
JP June 23rd
Better yet: don’t use an dummy for javascript buttons. Use a button or a styled span instead.
( )Shane June 23rd
Here are 25 tips.
( )ShipWreck June 23rd
Plug!
( )That aside: they listed some other pretty useful tips.
Shane June 24th
I’m not affiliated to that website in any way. Therefore, it’s not a plug
Caroline Schnapp June 23rd
Thanks Shane, that’s a nice article.
( )Philip von Bargen June 23rd
Instead of using “return false;” at chapter 9 you could pass the event and use the “preventDefault()” function like this:
$(’#item’).click (function (e) {
( )e.preventDefault();
// stuff here
});
Giulio June 24th
That’s another option, thanks for having pointed this out!
( )Eduardo Sasso June 23rd
Great tips. It’s always nice to improve performance even with jQuery which is already pretty fast.
( )Adardesign June 23rd
Thanks,
( )Great Post
Jan June 23rd
Any Mootools tutorials in the future?
Thx
( )Brown Robott June 24th
Mootools is a great js library but it doesn’t get the love that jQuery gets.
( )Jack F June 23rd
I prefer e.preventDefault() rather that return false; but that’s just a personal thing, inless you think there is any speed difference? Nice article.
( )Jim Neath June 23rd
So apart from some of these having nothing to do with performance, half of them aren’t about speeding up your “jQuery” as you’re just using native javascript instead of the jQuery functions.
Another shoddy article, Nettuts.
( )Giulio June 24th
Thanks for the support, really.
By the way, jQuery IS javascript and what most people don’t catch is it’s not always a great thing make indiscriminate use of jQuery built in methods; instead, try replacing them with some “pure” javascript
( )James June 28th
Sarcasm isn’t needed… Jim makes a good point; most of your “tips” don’t really improve performance, plus some of them seem quite mis-informed; especially “avoid DOM manipulation” … God! You’re just going to be confusing so many beginners with this list. I didn’t show my concern originally but this really won’t do. Jeffrey, if you read this, I have to say I’m surprised you let this one through. Some of the points are valild but you know as well as I do, when a beginner sees one of these “10 top ways” lists they follow it without question. Misinformation is breaking the internet!
Henrik Hjelte June 23rd
Great tips, but remember what Knuth says: Premature optimization is the root of all evil. Don’t trade simplicity for optimization unless there is a measured need for optimization. Changing nice style (each) to ugliness (for) should not be done without a sound reason.
( )Caroline Schnapp June 23rd
I agree, Henrik. Even with much DOM manipulation, jQuery is still blazingly fast. Most often, one cannot tell without resorting to metrics or viewing source if it’s the server that delivered these bits in the page, or client-side JavaScript. It’s that fast. I prefer code that is elegant and readable.
( )Dimas June 28th
and on top of this, JS is run client side, so you do not have to make fine tuning code tweeks for millions of users, just for one!
Giulio June 25th
Hm, never thought of this, but good point
( )AnonymousCoward June 23rd
Some good advice, some not so good….
1. Use the latest version, but only after you’ve thoroughly tested it. Linking to a resource that changes outside of your control is a recipe for disaster.
2, 8. JavaScript performance in general, not jQuery
3, 4, 6. How did you do your profiling here? Script would be running client side in all cases…
9. True sometimes, but needs an explanation of when/why.
Biggest problem with this post is that there’s already been umpteen on the exact same topic by other blogs in the past month, which means that this brings absolutely nothing new to the table, and is borderline plagiarism (that is, in the parts that weren’t misinformation…). I’m about one bad post away from unsubscribing from NetTuts. It’s turning into an echo chamber of slightly modified posts that other bloggers actually spent time on…
( )Myfacefriends June 23rd
thanks for this wonderful tuts!
( )Dario Gutierrez June 23rd
Really useful dude.
( )Diego SA June 23rd
WOw! That’s what I call by “ultimate jQuery tips tutorial”. So well explained and these graphics make everything become easier for have notion of how jQuery operates. Some awesome tips could save my day! Thanks a lot!
( )Michael Kozakewich June 23rd
CSS selectors go from right to left. In other words, #id .class would search for all .class, and then look to see which of those are also descendants of #id. Do you know if jQuery does the same thing? If so, $(”.class”,”#id”) would be a lot faster than $(”#id .class”).
As for returning false: I was looking at a Wikipedia article about CMSes, and I realized their long lists were sortable. I could sort by name or version, but when I tried to sort by ‘last date updated’, which had blank or missing cells, it just bumped me all the way to the top of the screen, and I had to scroll past several tables to get back where I was.
( )Considering it took me upwards of 5000ms to scroll back down, it really does make it faster to specify a return code.
Josh June 23rd
Top #1 way to instantly increase your mootools performance
1. Switch to jQuery.
Just kidding only poking fun
( )Zim June 23rd
Excellent, I appreciate it! Thank you
( )Lloyd Vincent June 23rd
Beautiful collection of tips, there’s something for everyone here from beginner to advanced.
I just started learning jQuery so this came at the perfect time for me, before I’ve developed any bad habits.
( )Sunil Agarwal June 23rd
Wow I didn’t realize there’s such a big difference between for() and each(). Great post. Thanks a lot!
( )insic June 23rd
9. Return False
The explanation is confusing, maybe there are other valid reasons why we should put return false other than it is annoying.
( )Aaron June 24th
I think the whole point of #9 is to keep the page from scrolling all the way to the top when an action is called. Other than an explanation of being annoying it’s a better user experience to keep this from happening, which is why return false is used.
( )Kanedogg June 28th
Well thats true, i use return false in any j/script for that exact reason!
E.G: If your posting a form and returning your result via “ajax” or alike having save the user the PAIN of doing a whole page refresh !!
Or another good one is the Link Or href use – as was mentioned, save a link click jumping you to the top of a page use it there like so – onclick=”doSomething(’blahblah”); return false;”
another one for these is void(0); Hope dis helps some?
cheers
Rata June 23rd
For WordPress I use a plugin with great success: „Use Google Libraries“, just have a look, works fine.
Nice tut
Thanks.
Kind regards
( )Rata
Adrian von Gegerfelt June 24th
Would be nice to include graphs for Safari 4, Firefox 3, FF3.5 and IE8…
( )Mats June 24th
1: Who would point their production site to an unknown version of a library? Noone!!
2. Has nothing to do with JQuery
Point 3, 4, 5 & 6 are worth reading.
Point 7-10 …?
The online vs local comparison, WTF??
( )Björn June 24th
Yet another resource for performance tips:
http://www.artzstudio.com/2009/04/jquery-performance-rules/
Best regards,
( )Björn
Andrea September 6th
Thanks Björn!
( )przemeko June 24th
I really don’t understand separating “local” and “online”? What’s the diffrent?
( )Alaa Al-Hussein June 24th
I didn’t know about these 10 things before.
Thanks for providing such important information.
( )Mohamed Aslam June 24th
Nice tutorial. Expeting these kind of tutorials for Prototype – script.aculo.us and Mootools.
Anyway nice job!
( )wayno007 June 24th
Very useful tut.
( )Greg Givan June 24th
Rather than being concerned with “return false” for click events, I’ve begun setting the href attribute value to
javascript:void(0);
which does not cause the page to ‘jump’
( )James June 28th
Greg! Don’t do this!
For one, you shouldn’t be using the ‘javascript’ pseudo protocol and you definitely should not be using inline JavaScript! Search “unobtrusive JavaScript” … you’ll be enlightened
( )Fredrik W June 24th
I prefer using:
$(’#el’).click(function(event){
event.preventDefault();
/* … */
})
because it’s less magical.
( )Jim June 24th
I like to store references to the jQuery object which was returned by the factory if I will need to operate on the same matched collection again later.
var $myContainer = $( ‘#container’ ).show();
Later when I need to operate on the element which matched, I can chain off of $myContainer instead of having the factory find the element again.
This is also how I handled context before reading the tip on the context parameter (which I had no idea about, so THANK YOU for pointing it out). If I built a widget of some sort, I put it all into some kind of container element with an ID. I then get a reference to the collection that matches that ID (as I did in the above code example) and get items from within it by chaining .find() or .children() off of the reference.
Now that I know about the context parameter, I’ll be using it OR my previous method depending on which makes more sense at a given time.
Thanks for a good article.
( )Jim
Shane June 24th
I’m all for software performance, and we should all keep these things in mind.
However, to best determine differences between browsers and coding methods, loops with many iterations are used. Whilst I understand this highlites those differences, does it really present a ‘real-world’ situation? Does the ‘typical’ usage of javascript involve such intensive processing? Perhaps I’m wrong here (and I feel like I’m inviting a shed-load of comments), but performance isn’t as important as, say, a realtime C++ system – is it?
( )Brandon Aaron June 24th
In regards to #5, the the optional context argument is actually used a little differently. Passing a selector as the context gets turned into this instead:
$(’#class-container’).find(’.class’);
Hopefully this blog post will help clear things up in regards to the context: http://brandonaaron.net/blog/2009/06/24/understanding-the-context-in-jquery
( )Caroline Schnapp June 25th
Thank you, Brandon!
( )Hayes Potter June 24th
You should have included what return: false; actually means/does. It tells jQuery to end the query and to not do anything else, nothing whatsoever.
( )James June 28th
What? “end the query” …. I think you mean “end the function”. Returning false has absolutely nothing to do with jQuery – it’s a JavaScript statement.
( )A'braham Barakhyahu June 24th
For #7, would rebuilding the fragment each time you add something be faster than a perpend? That would be surprising if it is.
( )Prashant June 24th
How you guyz made http://nettuts.s3.amazonaws.com/359_jqueryTips/jquery.png this image, I want to make something like this, please tell me how to do this, is there any software or tool for this ??
( )Johan June 26th
How does using multiple $(document).ready areas affect performance?
( )Gareth Hardy June 27th
Another useful article! Thanks nettuts!
( )Sean Sumido June 28th
Guys, question… It is really important to add XTHML doc, when using AJAX?
because I still us the HTML 4.0
and i still use tables instead of CSS
( )Jeremy Dill June 30th
Abstraction will always cost you some performance, but I really think jQuery team needs to do some more performance testing and ask themselves why some basic functions such as .each take so much more time that native js which requires only a tad bit more code to write. Maybe they can find some performance gains somewhere while maintaining the excellent abstraction.
For example, something that has really be bothering me…
regarding
1. var list = ”;
2.
3. for (var i=0; i<1000; i++) {
4. list += ”+i+”;
5. }
6.
7. (’#list’).html (list);
I find it is actually faster to avoid .html(), and instead perform native js function of innerHTML on the object. For example:
$(’#list’)[0].innerHTML(list);
While this kind of tweak really only matters when looping, it comes up a lot when I am coding, and I hate having the temptation to break away from normal jQuery in order to achieve performance.
( )Anthony James Bruno July 6th
Here is a version of the YUI Compressor online: http://yui.2clics.net/
( )somihanquoc.com September 3rd
Hay phet, cha hieu gi. Ong Tay nao dich duoc ta viet gi thi moi goi la gioi
( )Noguchi September 18th
Kiddy, go away
( )Sumeet Chawla September 11th
Awesome tips.. thanks a ton
( )Andrea Grabner November 11th
Here is some more insight to the CSS Selector Performance: http://blog.dynatrace.com/2009/11/09/101-on-jquery-selector-performance/
( )