jQuery的:first和:eq(0)选择器在功能上是否等效? [英] Are jQuery's :first and :eq(0) selectors functionally equivalent?
问题描述
我不确定是使用 我认为第3个是最快的,第4个是最慢的,但这是我想出的结果: 我对返回最快的第一个本机DOM对象是正确的( 除非我做错了. 2018:是的, 2010年:好问题和好帖子.我前一段时间对此进行了测试,不记得确切的结果了.我真的很高兴能找到这个,因为这正是我想要的. 我猜想 毫无意外DOM元素是最快访问的元素.在循环中用jQuery包装DOM元素不一定会对性能产生不利影响,因为jQuery利用 expando 属性进行缓存. 但是,很有趣的是,看看 I'm not sure whether to use I'm sure someone here must have benchmarked these selectors before and I'm not really sure the best way to test if one is faster. Update: here's the bench I ran: I assumed that the 3rd would be the fastest and the 4th would be the slowest, but here's the results that I came up with: I was correct about just returning the first native DOM object being the fastest ( Unless I'm doing it wrong. 2018: Yes, 2010: Good question and great post. I tested this some while ago and couldn't remember the exact outcome. I'm really glad to have found this because it's precisely what I was looking for. I would guess that the reason for No surprises i.t.o. the DOM element being the fastest to access. Wrapping the DOM element with jQuery in a for loop won't necessarily have an adverse effect on performance as jQuery makes use of an expando property for caching purposes. However, it would be interesting to see how 这篇关于jQuery的:first和:eq(0)选择器在功能上是否等效?的文章就介绍到这了,希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助,也希望大家多多支持IT屋!:first
还是FF3: :eq(0) :first [0] $([0])
trial1 5275 4360 4107 3910
trial2 5175 5231 3916 4134
trial3 5317 5589 4670 4350
trial4 5754 4829 3988 4610
trial5 4771 6019 4669 4803
Average 5258.4 5205.6 4270 4361.4
IE6: :eq(0) :first [0] $([0])
trial1 13796 15733 12202 14014
trial2 14186 13905 12749 11546
trial3 12249 14281 13421 12109
trial4 14984 15015 11718 13421
trial5 16015 13187 11578 10984
Average 14246 14424.2 12333.6 12414.8
[0]
),但是我不相信在jQuery函数中包装该对象比:first
和:eq(0)
都快! /p>
:first
和:eq(0)
返回相同的结果,尽管性能差异在2018年可能很小,甚至微不足道.:first
和:eq(0)
变慢的原因很可能与解析性能有关.省略这些允许jQuery引擎使用本机getElementsByTagName
和getElementsByClassName
函数.get(0)
与DOM元素访问的比较以及jQuery的包装如何与eq(0)
以及其余结果相提并论.:first
or :eq(0)
in a selector. I'm pretty sure that they'll always return the same object, but is one speedier than the other? /* start bench */
for (var count = 0; count < 5; count++) {
var i = 0, limit = 10000;
var start, end;
start = new Date();
for (i = 0; i < limit; i++) {
var $radeditor = $thisFrame.parents("div.RadEditor.Telerik:eq(0)");
}
end = new Date();
alert("div.RadEditor.Telerik:eq(0) : " + (end-start));
var start = new Date();
for (i = 0; i < limit; i++) {
var $radeditor = $thisFrame.parents("div.RadEditor.Telerik:first");
}
end = new Date();
alert("div.RadEditor.Telerik:first : " + (end-start));
start = new Date();
for (i = 0; i < limit; i++) {
var radeditor = $thisFrame.parents("div.RadEditor.Telerik")[0];
}
end = new Date();
alert("(div.RadEditor.Telerik)[0] : " + (end-start));
start = new Date();
for (i = 0; i < limit; i++) {
var $radeditor = $($thisFrame.parents("div.RadEditor.Telerik")[0]);
}
end = new Date();
alert("$((div.RadEditor.Telerik)[0]) : " + (end-start));
}
/* end bench */
FF3: :eq(0) :first [0] $([0])
trial1 5275 4360 4107 3910
trial2 5175 5231 3916 4134
trial3 5317 5589 4670 4350
trial4 5754 4829 3988 4610
trial5 4771 6019 4669 4803
Average 5258.4 5205.6 4270 4361.4
IE6: :eq(0) :first [0] $([0])
trial1 13796 15733 12202 14014
trial2 14186 13905 12749 11546
trial3 12249 14281 13421 12109
trial4 14984 15015 11718 13421
trial5 16015 13187 11578 10984
Average 14246 14424.2 12333.6 12414.8
[0]
), but I can't believe the wrapping that object in the jQuery function was faster that both :first
and :eq(0)
!:first
and :eq(0)
return the same result although the performance difference would be marginal and perhaps even trivial in 2018.:first
and :eq(0)
being a tad slower is most likely related to parsing performance. Omitting these allows the jQuery engine to utilize the native getElementsByTagName
and getElementsByClassName
functions.get(0)
compares with DOM element access and how the jQuery wrapping thereof fares against eq(0)
and the rest of the results.