We Keep Coding

Should I be caching jQuery selectors in the global namespace? [duplicate]

I have some trouble that comes from my Javascript (JS) codes, since I sometimes need to access the same DOM elements more than once in the same function. Some reasoning is also provided here.
From the point of view of the performance, is it better to create a jQuery object once and then cache it or is it better to create the same jQuery object at will?
Example:
function(){
$('selector XXX').doSomething(); //first call
$('selector XXX').doSomething(); //second call
...
$('selector XXX').doSomething(); // n-th call
}
or
function(){
var obj = $('selector XXX');
obj.doSomething(); //first call
obj.doSomething(); //second call
...
obj.doSomething(); // n-th call
}
I suppose that the answer probably depends by the value of "n", so assume that n is a "small" number (e.g. 3), then a medium number (e.g. 10) and finally a large one (e.g. 30, like if the object is used for comparison in a for cycle).
Thanks in advance.

It is always better to cache the element, if n is greater than 1, cache the element, or chain the operations together (you can do $('#something').something().somethingelse(); for most jQuery operations, since they usually return the wrapped set itself). As an aside, it has become a bit of a standard to name cache variables beginning with a money sign $ so that later in the code it is evident that you are performing an operation on a jQuery set. So you will see a lot of people do var $content = $('#content'); then $content.find('...'); later on.

The second is superior. Most importantly, it is cleaner. In the future, if you want to change your selector, you only need to change it one place. Else you need to change it in N places.
Secondly, it should perform better, although a user would only notice for particularly heavy dom, or if you were invoking that function a lot.

If you look at this question from a different perspective, the correct answer is obvious.
In the first case, you're duplicating the selection logic in every place it appears. If you change the name of the element, you have to change each occurence. This should be reason enough to not do it. Now you have two options - either you cache the element's selector or the element itself. Using the element as an object makes more sense than using the name.
Performance-wise, I think the effect is negligible. Probably you'll be able to find test results for this particular use-case: caching jQuery objects vs always re-selecting them. Performance might become an issue if you have a large DOM and do a lot of lookups, but you need to see for yourself if that's the case.
If you want to see exactly how much memory your objects are taking up, you can use the Chrome Heap Profiler and check there. I don't know if similar tools are available for other browsers and probably the implementations will vary wildly in performance, especially in IE's case, but it may satisfy your curiosity.
IMO, you should use the second variant, storing the result of the selection in an object, no so much as to improve performance but to have as little duplicate logic as possible.
As for caching $(this), I agree with Nick Craver's answer. As he said there, you should also use chaining where possible - cleans up your code and solves your problem.

You should take a look at
http://www.artzstudio.com/2009/04/jquery-performance-rules/
or
http://addyosmani.com/jqprovenperformance/

I almost always prefer to cache the jQuery object but the benefit varies greatly based on exactly what you are using for your selector. If you are using ids then the benefit is far less than if you are using types of selectors. Also, not all selectors are created equally so try to keep that in mind when you write your selectors.
For example:
$('table tr td') is a very poor selector. Try to use context or .find() and it will make a BIG difference.
One thing I like to do is place timers in my code to see just how efficient it is.
var timer = new Date();
// code here
console.log('time to complete: ' + (new Date() - timer));
Most cached objects will be performed in less than 2 milliseconds where as brand new selectors take quite a bit longer because you first have to find the element, and then perform the operation.

In JavaScript, functions are generally short-lived—especially when hosted by a browser. However, a function’s scope might outlive the function. This happens, for example, when you create a closure. If you want to prevent a jQuery object from being referenced for a long time, you can assign null to any variables that reference it when you are done with that variable or use indirection to create your closures. For example:
var createHandler = function (someClosedOverValue) {
return function () {
doSomethingWith(someClosedOverValue);
};
}
var blah = function () {
var myObject = jQuery('blah');
// We want to enable the closure to access 'red' but not keep
// myObject alive, so use a special createHandler for it:
var myClosureWithoutAccessToMyObject = createHandler('red');
doSomethingElseWith(myObject, myClosureWithoutAccessToMyObject);
// After this function returns, and assuming doSomethingElseWith() does
// not itself generate additional references to myObject, myObject
// will no longer have any references and be elligible for garbage
// collection.
}
Because jQuery(selector) might end up having to run expensive algorithms or even walk the DOM tree a bit for complex expressions that can’t be handled by the browser directly, it is better to cache the returned object. Also, as others have mentioned, for code clarity, it is better to cache the returned object to avoid typing the selector multiple times. I.e., DRY code is often easier to maintain than WET code.
However, each jQuery object has some amount of overhead. So storing large arrays of jQuery objects in global variables is probably wasteful—unless if you actually need to operate on large numbers of these objects and still treat them as distinct. In such a situation, you might save memory by caching arrays of the DOM elements directly and using the jQuery(DOMElement) constructor which should basically be free when iterating over them.
Though, as people say, you can only know the best approach for your particular case by benchmarking different approaches. It is hard to predict reality even when theory seems sound ;-).

Is Object.getPrototypeOf(val).toString() safe to ensure DOM types?

I am writing a piece of library code for internal development at my company, so this is purely a personal satisfaction question - if there are issues, our error logging will note it pretty quickly and we'll be able to do updates... I'd just like to avoid those if possible :D
The library needs to operate on <th> or <td> values passed in that are either sourced from document.get..., document.createElement or onmousedown events. I've had issues when the wrong sort of object (i.e. non-th/td) went into the function, so I've put a fail-out clause at the top of the function:
function doSomething (cell) {
var _objName = Object.getPrototypeOf(cell).toString();
if (_objName.indexOf("HTMLTableCellElement") === -1 &&
_objName.indexOf("HTMLTableHeaderCellElement") === -1) {
// log error
return false;
}
// normal work here
}
Is this safe? I'm targetting modern (IE 10+, Chrome) browsers within our company, and it seems to work at the moment:
IE returns "[object HTMLTableCellElementPrototype]" (For <TD>) or "[object HTMLTableCellHeaderElementPrototype]" (for <TH>)
Chrome returns "[object HTMLTableCellElement]" for both
I'm concerned that I'm relying on a non-documented implementation detail and things are going to break when we move to other browsers or browsers are updated.
Is this safe, or should I be using another method to ensure correct input? Some of this input is going to be from things the user has clicked on, so there definitely will be invalid input going to the function...

should I be using another method to ensure correct input?
Yes. Using toString might work, but checking class names is never a really good idea.
Instead, simply use .tagName to check whether an element of the right kind was passed:
if (cell.tagName != "TD" && cell.tagName != "TH") { return false; }
Alternatively, you could use a DOM selector like in
if (!cell.matches("td, th")) { return false; }
but cross-browser support for .matches() isn't that good.

Detecting when any variable in a large JS program is set to NaN

I have a large, messy JS codebase. Sometimes, when the app is being used, a variable is set to NaN. Because x = 2 + NaN results in x being set to NaN, the NaN it spreads virally. At some point, after it has spread pretty far, the user notices that there are NaNs all over the place and shit generally doesn't work anymore. From this state, it is very difficult for me to backtrack and identify the source of the NaN (and there could very well be multiple sources).
The NaN bug is also not easily reproducible. Despite hundreds of people observing it and reporting it to me, nobody can tell me a set of steps that lead to the appearance of NaNs. Maybe it is a rare race condition or something. But it's definitely rare and of uncertain origins.
How can I fix this bug? Any ideas?
Two stupid ideas I've thought of, which may not be feasible:
Write some kind of pre-processor that inserts isNaN checks before every time any variable is used and logs the first occurrence of NaN. I don't think this has been done before and I don't know how hard it would be. Any advice would be appreciated.
Run my code in a JS engine that has the ability to set a breakpoint any time any variable is set to NaN. I don't think anything does this out of the box, but how hard would it be to add it to Firefox or Chrome?
I feel like I must not be the first person to have this type of problem, but I can't find anyone else talking about it.

There is probably no solution for your problem aka: break, whenever any variable is set to NaN. Instead, you could try to observe your variables like this:
It was earlier stated, that the Chrome debugger offers conditional breakpoints. But, it also supports to watch expressions. In the Watch-Expressions menu you can set a condition to break, whenever the variable is set to a specific value.
Object.observe is a method that observes changes on a object. You are able to listen to all changes on the object, and call debug when any variable is set to NaN. For example, you could observe all change on the window object. Whenever any variable on the window object is set to NaN, you call debug. Please note, that Object.observe is quite cutting edge and not supported by all browsers (check out the polyfill in this case).
Take this opportunity to write a test case for every function in your code. Perform random testing and find the line of code that can create NaN values.
Another problem of yours is probably how to reproduce this error. Reloading your webpage over and over doesn't make too much sense. You could check out a so called headless browser: It starts an instance of a browser without displaying it. It can be leveraged to perform automatic tests on the website, click some buttons, do some stuff. Maybe you can script it in such a way that it finally reproduces your error. This has the advantage that you don't have to reload your webpage hundreds of times. There are several implementations for headless browsers. PhantomJS is really nice, in my opinion. You can also start a Chrome Debug Console with it (you need some plugin: remote debugger).
Furthermore, please notice that NaN is never equal to NaN. It would be a pity if you finally are able to reproduce the error, but your breakpoints don't work.

If you're doing a good job keeping things off of the global namespace and nesting things in objects, this might be of help. And I will preface this by saying this is by no means a fully complete solution, but at the very least, this should help you on your search.
function deepNaNWatch(objectToWatch) {
'use strict';
// Setting this to true will check object literals for NaN
// For example: obj.example = { myVar : NaN };
// This will, however, cost even more performance
var configCheckObjectLiterals = true;
var observeAllChildren = function observeAllChildren(parentObject) {
for (var key in parentObject) {
if (parentObject.hasOwnProperty(key)) {
var childObject = parentObject[key];
examineObject(childObject);
}
}
};
var examineObject = function examineObject(obj) {
var objectType = typeof obj;
if (objectType === 'object' || objectType === 'function') {
Object.observe(obj, recursiveWatcher);
if (configCheckObjectLiterals) {
observeAllChildren(obj);
}
} if (objectType === 'number' && isNaN(obj)) {
console.log('A wild NaN appears!');
}
};
var recursiveWatcher = function recursiveWatcher(changes) {
var changeInfo = changes[0];
var changedObject = changeInfo.object[changeInfo.name];
examineObject(changedObject);
};
Object.observe(objectToWatch, recursiveWatcher);
}
Call deepNaNWatch(parentObject) for every top level object/function you're using to nest things under as soon as they are created. Any time an object or function is created within a watched object/function, it itself will become watched as well. Any time a number is created or changed under a watched object--remember that typeof NaN == 'number'--it will check if it's NaN, and if so will run the code at console.log('A wild NaN appears!');. Be sure to change that to whatever sort of debugging output you feel will help.
This function would be more helpful if someone could find a way to force it onto the global object, but every attempt I made to do so simply told me I should sit in time out and think about what I've done.
Oh, and if it's not obvious from the above, on a large scale project, this function is bound to make pesky features like "speed" and "efficiency" a thing of the past.

Are your code communicate with your server side, or it is only client side?
You mention that it is rare problem, therfore it may happend only in some browsers (or browsers version) or on any situation which may be hard to reproduce. If we assume that any appearance of nan is problem, and that when it happend user notice bug ("there are NaNs all over the place"), then instead display popup with error, error should contain first occurence of nan (then users may raport it "Despite hundreds of people observing it and reporting it to me"). Or not show it, but send it to server. To do that write simple function which take as agument only one variable and check if variable is NaN,. Put it in your code in sensitive places (sensitive variables). And this raports maybe solate problematic code. I know that this is very dirty, but it can help.

One of your math functions is failing. I have used Number(variable) to correct this problem before. Here is an example:
test3 = Number(test2+test1) even if test1 and test2 appear to be numbers

Yeah man race conditions can be a pain, sounds like what it may be.
Debugging to the source is definitely going to be the way to go with this.
My suggestion would be to setup some functional testing with a focus on where these have been reproduced, set some test conditions with varied timeouts or such and just rerun it until it catches it. Set up some logging process to see that backtrace if possible.
What does your stack look like? I can't give too much analysis without looking at your code but since its javascript you should be able to make use of the browser's dev tools I assume?

If you know locations where the NaNs propagate to, you could try to use program slicing to narrow down the other program statements that influence that value (through control and data dependences). These tools are usually non-trivial to set up, however, so I would try the Object.observe-style answers others are giving first.
You might try WALA from IBM. It's written in Java, but has a Javascript frontend. You can find information on slicer on the wiki.
Basically, if the tool is working you will give it a program point (statement) and it will give you a set of statements that the starting point is (transitively) control- and/or data-dependent on. If you know multiple "infected" points and suspect a single source, you could use the intersection of their slices to narrow down the list (the slice of a program point can often be a very large set of statements).

(was too long for a comment)
While testing you could overwrite ALL Math functions to check if an NaN is being produced.
This will not catch
a = 'string' + 1;
but will catch things like
a = Math.cos('string');
a = Math.cos(Infinity);
a = Math.sqrt(-1);
a = Math.max(NaN, 1);
...
Example:
for(var n Object.getOwnPropertyNames(Math)){
if (typeof Math[n] === 'function') Math[n] = wrap(Math[n]);
}
function wrap(fn){
return function(){
var res = fn.apply(this, arguments);
if (isNaN(res)) throw new Error('NaN found!')/*or debugger*/;
return res;
};
}
I didn't tested, maybe an explicit list of the "wrap"ed methods is better.
BTW, you should not put this into production code.

Caching of javascript variables [duplicate]

I have some trouble that comes from my Javascript (JS) codes, since I sometimes need to access the same DOM elements more than once in the same function. Some reasoning is also provided here.
From the point of view of the performance, is it better to create a jQuery object once and then cache it or is it better to create the same jQuery object at will?
Example:
function(){
$('selector XXX').doSomething(); //first call
$('selector XXX').doSomething(); //second call
...
$('selector XXX').doSomething(); // n-th call
}
or
function(){
var obj = $('selector XXX');
obj.doSomething(); //first call
obj.doSomething(); //second call
...
obj.doSomething(); // n-th call
}
I suppose that the answer probably depends by the value of "n", so assume that n is a "small" number (e.g. 3), then a medium number (e.g. 10) and finally a large one (e.g. 30, like if the object is used for comparison in a for cycle).
Thanks in advance.

It is always better to cache the element, if n is greater than 1, cache the element, or chain the operations together (you can do $('#something').something().somethingelse(); for most jQuery operations, since they usually return the wrapped set itself). As an aside, it has become a bit of a standard to name cache variables beginning with a money sign $ so that later in the code it is evident that you are performing an operation on a jQuery set. So you will see a lot of people do var $content = $('#content'); then $content.find('...'); later on.

The second is superior. Most importantly, it is cleaner. In the future, if you want to change your selector, you only need to change it one place. Else you need to change it in N places.
Secondly, it should perform better, although a user would only notice for particularly heavy dom, or if you were invoking that function a lot.

If you look at this question from a different perspective, the correct answer is obvious.
In the first case, you're duplicating the selection logic in every place it appears. If you change the name of the element, you have to change each occurence. This should be reason enough to not do it. Now you have two options - either you cache the element's selector or the element itself. Using the element as an object makes more sense than using the name.
Performance-wise, I think the effect is negligible. Probably you'll be able to find test results for this particular use-case: caching jQuery objects vs always re-selecting them. Performance might become an issue if you have a large DOM and do a lot of lookups, but you need to see for yourself if that's the case.
If you want to see exactly how much memory your objects are taking up, you can use the Chrome Heap Profiler and check there. I don't know if similar tools are available for other browsers and probably the implementations will vary wildly in performance, especially in IE's case, but it may satisfy your curiosity.
IMO, you should use the second variant, storing the result of the selection in an object, no so much as to improve performance but to have as little duplicate logic as possible.
As for caching $(this), I agree with Nick Craver's answer. As he said there, you should also use chaining where possible - cleans up your code and solves your problem.

You should take a look at
http://www.artzstudio.com/2009/04/jquery-performance-rules/
or
http://addyosmani.com/jqprovenperformance/

I almost always prefer to cache the jQuery object but the benefit varies greatly based on exactly what you are using for your selector. If you are using ids then the benefit is far less than if you are using types of selectors. Also, not all selectors are created equally so try to keep that in mind when you write your selectors.
For example:
$('table tr td') is a very poor selector. Try to use context or .find() and it will make a BIG difference.
One thing I like to do is place timers in my code to see just how efficient it is.
var timer = new Date();
// code here
console.log('time to complete: ' + (new Date() - timer));
Most cached objects will be performed in less than 2 milliseconds where as brand new selectors take quite a bit longer because you first have to find the element, and then perform the operation.

In JavaScript, functions are generally short-lived—especially when hosted by a browser. However, a function’s scope might outlive the function. This happens, for example, when you create a closure. If you want to prevent a jQuery object from being referenced for a long time, you can assign null to any variables that reference it when you are done with that variable or use indirection to create your closures. For example:
var createHandler = function (someClosedOverValue) {
return function () {
doSomethingWith(someClosedOverValue);
};
}
var blah = function () {
var myObject = jQuery('blah');
// We want to enable the closure to access 'red' but not keep
// myObject alive, so use a special createHandler for it:
var myClosureWithoutAccessToMyObject = createHandler('red');
doSomethingElseWith(myObject, myClosureWithoutAccessToMyObject);
// After this function returns, and assuming doSomethingElseWith() does
// not itself generate additional references to myObject, myObject
// will no longer have any references and be elligible for garbage
// collection.
}
Because jQuery(selector) might end up having to run expensive algorithms or even walk the DOM tree a bit for complex expressions that can’t be handled by the browser directly, it is better to cache the returned object. Also, as others have mentioned, for code clarity, it is better to cache the returned object to avoid typing the selector multiple times. I.e., DRY code is often easier to maintain than WET code.
However, each jQuery object has some amount of overhead. So storing large arrays of jQuery objects in global variables is probably wasteful—unless if you actually need to operate on large numbers of these objects and still treat them as distinct. In such a situation, you might save memory by caching arrays of the DOM elements directly and using the jQuery(DOMElement) constructor which should basically be free when iterating over them.
Though, as people say, you can only know the best approach for your particular case by benchmarking different approaches. It is hard to predict reality even when theory seems sound ;-).

javascript onclick remove single checkbox

Now I'm sure this is super easy, I have a function called "remove_deposit" which I want it to make the checkbox false if it's true. But I can't seem to get it to work..
function remove_deposit() {
if(document.getElementById('deposit').checked == true) {
document.getElementById('deposit').checked == false;
};
};
Am I at least on the right track?? lol

function remove_deposit() {
if(document.getElementById('deposit').checked == true) {
document.getElementById('deposit').checked = false;
};
};
You were doing a comparison instead of simply setting the checked attribute to false.

function remove_deposit() {
document.getElementById('deposit').checked = false
}
That's all you need. The reason why your code wasn't working was because you used two equals signs, which is a comparison operator, instead of one equals sign, which is the assignment operator.
Addendum: I removed the if statement since it doesn't really do anything useful afaict. If you did this to optimize the code, then I'd just like to point out that checking the if statement will probably be slower than just setting the checkbox to false. Also, you don't need to end every line with a semi-colon in JavaScript. You can do that if you want to put multiple commands on a single line, but otherwise it's not necessary.
Results are in.
If most of the time people running the javascript to set the checkbox to false do have the checkbox set to true, skipping the if statement is faster. Otherwise, if most of the time the checkbox is set to false, then the if statement would be faster. With a 1:1 ratio, no if statement is preferred.
The checkbox would have to be set to false at least 54% of the time for the if code to be more efficient.
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4260/results.png http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4260/results.png
Side-note: If it's a checkbox, it's probably in a form, so you could also access it with the old-fashioned method document.formName.elementName instead of document.getElementById(). Because the form method doesn't need to traverse the DOM like getElementById does, I think that would be faster.
The results are in.
With 0 IDs preceding it, document.test_form.checkbox (DTFC) is slower than document.getElementById('checkbox') (GEBI). With 100 IDs preceding it, document.test_form.checkbox is still slower than document.getElementById('checkbox').
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/6683/resultsw.png http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/6683/resultsw.png
I guess that settles it.
PS: These were all tested on Firefox using Firebug. I cannot make any claims about the efficiency of Safari's WebKit, Konqueror's KJS, IE's proprietary engine, or Google Chrome's V8. I'm guessing they should wind up somewhat similar to these, but they could be different.

You have an small error in your code sample on line 3. You've used a double equals ==
It should read:
document.getElementById('deposit').checked = false;