To $('#foo p') or to $('p', $('#foo'))

24 February 2009   2 comments   Javascript

http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-en/msg/ec43a643e0f0bd54

Powered by Fusion×

For the performance interested jQuery users please check out this thread

For the impatient, read Stephens reply He benchmarked what I asked and concluded that $("p", $("#foo")) is much faster in jQuery 1.3.2. I've been coding this style in jQuery for all recent projects so I'm happy with this outcome.

UPDATE

John Resig himself joined in on the discussion and had this to say:

"You should always use $("#foo").find("p") in favor of $("p", $("#foo")) - the second one ends up executing $(...) 3 times total - only to arrive at the same result as doing $("#foo").find("p")."

UPDATE 2

Not only did John join in on the discussion but it also made him work on jQuery 1.3.3 (not yet released at the time of writing) so that it doesn't matter which format you use you get the same performance. See the benchmark here

Comments

h3
Why not simply: $("#foo").find("p");

The syntax is more clear and readable, and jQuery isn't called twice.

Performance wise, they are practically equivalent.
Peter Bengtsson
See my update in the blog post.
Thank you for posting a comment

Your email will never ever be published


Related posts

Previous:
Propeller Island City Lodge Orange Room 23 February 2009
Next:
Sandisk SSD v/s HDD 04 March 2009
Related:
Some tips on learning React 04 August 2015
Benchmarking Autocompeter 12 April 2015
django-fancy-cache with or without stats 11 March 2013
Difference between $.data('foo') and $.attr('data-foo') in jQuery 10 June 2012
QUnit testing my jQuery Mobile site in full swing 17 March 2011
Optimization of getting random rows out of a PostgreSQL in Django 23 February 2011
Why I gave up on JQuery UI's autocomplete 20 October 2010
Local Django development with Nginx 11 October 2010
In jQuery, using the :visible selector can be dangerous 14 September 2010
Lesson learnt with creating DOM element with jQuery 04 April 2008