I find myself doing a lot of this kind of JQuery:
$('.filter-topic-id').each(function () {
var me = $(this);
if (me.text() == topics[k]) {
me.parent().show();
}
});
I store $(this) in a variable called me because I'm afraid it will re-evaluate $(this) for no reason. Are the major JavaScript engines smart enough to know that it doesn't have to re-evaluate it? Maybe even JQuery is smart enough somehow?
They are not smart enough to know not to revaluate $(this) again, if that's what your code says. Caching a jQuery object in a variable is a best practice.
If your question refers to your way in the question compared to this way
$('.filter-topic-id').each(function () {
if ($(this).text() == topics[k]) { // jQuery object created passing in this
$(this).parent().show(); // another jQuery object created passing in this
}
});
your way is the best practice.
Are the major JavaScript engines smart enough to know that it doesn't have to re-evaluate it?
No. But if you are using jQuery you are presumably aiming for readability rather than necessarily maximum performance.
Write whichever version you find easiest to read and maintain, and don't worry about micro-optimisations like this until your page is too slow and you've exhausted other more significant sources of delay. There is not a lot of work involved in calling $(node).
You could try to profile your code with Firebug and see if using $(this) many times slows your app or not
There is no good way that a javascript can determine that the following is true:-
fn(x) == fn(x);
Even if this was possible not calling the second fn could only be valid if it could be guaraneed that fn has not have other side-effects. When there is other code between calls to fn then its even more difficult.
Hence Javascript engines have no choice but to actually call fn each time it is invoked.
The overhead of calling $() is quite small but not insignificant. I would certainly hold the result in a local variable as you are doing.
this is just a reference to the current DOM element in the iteration, so there's little or no overhead involved when calling $(this). It just creates a jQuery wrapper around the DOM element.
I think you'll find that calling the jQuery function by passing a dom element is perhaps the least-intensive of ways to construct the object. It doesn't have to do any look-ups or query the DOM, just wrap it and return it.
That said, it definitely doesn't hurt to use the method you're using there, and that's what I do all the time myself. It certainly helps for when you create nested closures:
$('div').click(function() {
var $this = $(this);
$this.find("p").each(function() {
// here, there's no reference to the div other than by using $this
alert(this.nodeName); // "p"
});
});
Related
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 ;-).
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 ;-).
Does creating and reusing a reference increase performance appreciably when the selector is $(this)?
I create references for my jQuery selectors when I use the same selector multiple times in the same scope. The following is more efficient
var jSel = $('div.some_class input.some_other_class');
some_function1(jSel);
some_function2(jSel);
than this
some_function1($('div.some_class input.some_other_class'));
some_function2($('div.some_class input.some_other_class'));
But what if the selector is simply $(this) where this is a dom element inside a jQuery method. Should I bother to create a reference to $(this) and reuse the reference or can I create multiple $(this) selectors and expect similar performance?
Is the following
var jSel = $(this);
some_function1(jSel);
some_function2(jSel);
significantly faster than the following?
some_function1($(this));
some_function2($(this));
Is the following significantly faster than the following?
No. It is microscopically faster; in the realms of just a few microseconds.
Does that stop you assigning the result to a variable and using that? No. Using a variable can give more meaning to what this is, and can be easier to type. Plus, if you stopped wanting to operate on $(this), and instead wanted $(this).next(), you have to change it in one place instead of n.
You'll find the jQuery constructor is highly optimized for accepting a single DOM element as a parameter. The following is the exact code that gets executed when you call $(DOMElement) (after the jQuery object has been created, of course):
var match, elem, ret, doc;
// Handle $(""), $(null), or $(undefined)
if ( !selector ) {
return this;
}
// Handle $(DOMElement)
if ( selector.nodeType ) {
this.context = this[0] = selector;
this.length = 1;
return this;
}
// Handle lots of other param types, but we hit the above one, so we've stopped now...
It all depends on how many calls you make. It's certainly faster to set a variable equal to something that does work than to keep doing the same work, but the difference will be extremely negligible in your sample. If you're doing this in a loop of 5 million, the difference will be less negligible and setting the variable will be faster as it only does the work once and not 5 million times.
In this particular case, if you're really writing functions that expect a jQuery object as a parameter (as in your examples), you could just re-write those functions as jQuery methods. Then you could write:
$(this).some_function1().some_function2();
It's pretty easy to write jQuery methods, at least simple ones. The general (again, simple) form is:
jQuery.fn.some_function = function() {
return this.each(function() {
// stuff you want to do
});
};
this is a reference to the object. Using $(this) takes a bit of time (because of jQuery turning it into an array) but this time is irrelevant IMHO. So the first method should be a bit faster, but actually you won't notice the difference.
http://jsperf.com/jquery-cache-vs-no-chace
Should give you a basic idea of speed difference. In most of the simple cases it probably wouldn't affect your code execution speed noticeably but where JS is a bottleneck every bit helps + it's always a best choice to make good practices a routine!
A lil benchmark:
http://jsperf.com/jquery-this-selector-performance
Example:
$("#footer-create-nav li").click(function () {
var $this = $(this);
$this.addClass('footer-create-active');
$this.siblings().removeClass('footer-create-active');
return false;
}
vs how alot of my code looks:
$("#footer-create-nav li").click(function () {
$(this).addClass('footer-create-active');
$(this).siblings().removeClass('footer-create-active');
return false;
}
It is a good practice to avoid recreating a jQuery object multiple times.
this represents a DOM object, and when passed to the $ or jQuery function, a new jQuery object is created every single time. Caching that object once in $this or any other variable name of your liking avoids having to recreate the object on each invocation of $(this). The benefits of this caching may depend on how many times you are calling $(this) and may be unnoticeable in most cases.
To get a better idea, test it out for yourselves.
You have another option. jQuery methods return the object they're operating on.
$(this).addClass("example")
would return the value of $(this).
So you could write your function as
$("#footer-create-nav li").click(function () {
$(this).addClass('footer-create-active')
.siblings().removeClass('footer-create-active');
return false;
}
and only refer to this once without using another variable.
See Also
Question: jQuery chaining: Can everything be chained? When can we not chain?
Probably not. To put things in perspective, if a user triggered that function (by clicking) a thousand times on a single page, the speedup might balance out the additional download time incurred by the additional 20 bytes of JS code.
If you were doing a complex selector lookup in a tight loop, caching the result might be worthwhile. It definitely isn't in this case, though.
I can't explain it, but this jsperf appears to show that it is better to call $(this) each time...
http://jsperf.com/jquery-this-vs-this-vs-chain
(I'm using prototype.js here, but I imagine the same holds true across other libraries as well)
I often find myself writing code like this:
var search_box;
Event.observe(window, 'load', function() {
search_box = $('search_box');
});
function doSomething(msg) {
search_box.innerHTML = msg;
}
Rather then writing it simply like this:
function doSomething(msg) {
$('search_box').innerHTML = msg;
}
My intention is to avoid having to traverse the entire DOM searching for the "search_box" element everything I need access to it. So I search for it once on page load and then stick the reference in a global variable. However, I don't recall ever seeing anyone else do this? Am I needlessly making my code more complex?
This is called premature optimization.
You are introducing a global variable to optimize something you have not profiled.
Your assumption that the $ "traverses the DOM" is incorrect. This function is implemented using document.getElementById which is the fastest way to access an element in the DOM.
I suggest coding your javascript using basic programming best practices such as avoiding global variables, and not optimizing without profiling. Once your application is working as expected, then you should profile it (using firebug) and address the area(s) where it is slow.
I usually do the same thing, the reason you don't see it often is probably because you don't see well written code often that's optimized ( nevermind the whole preoptimization is evil thing ) - I say if you can optimize it without headaches then why not?
Realistically speaking though that's a very very trivial DOM lookup, you should only begin to worry if you're iterating through dozens of elements and being vague in the selectors.. so I wouldn't worry too much about it unless you can really notice certain parts of your web page loading rather slowly, in which case you should store the multiple elements you access in the outer scope's variable.
Good:
(function() {
var els = $$('.foo span'); // also better to specify a context but I'm not sure how that's done in Prototype, it's the second param in jQuery.
function foo() {
els.something();
}
els.somethingElse();
})();
Bad:
(function() {
var els = $$('.foo span'); // also better to specify a context but I'm not sure how that's done in Prototype, it's the second param in jQuery.
function foo() {
$$('.foo span').something();
}
$$('.foo span').somethingElse();
})();
I decided to spend a bit of time doing some testing to get some hard data. The answer is that preloading the elements into global variables is twice as efficient as accessing them using the DOM getElementById method. (At least under FF 3.6).
Subsequent accesses to the objects is also more efficient using the global variable method, but only marginally so.