So I've wrote a simple benchmark : http://hanblog.info/test/sizzle/sizzle-perf.html and http://hanblog.info/test/sizzle/nosizzle-perf.html
On my computer, Firefox 3 is 2 times slower (700ms -> 1400ms) and Opera is 4 to 5 times slower (160ms -> 760ms). On Dec 22, 5:40 am, "John Resig" <[email protected]> wrote: > I've seen some numbers related to those events both nothing in > particular as it relates to jQuery/Sizzle. If there's a significant > slowdown I would be open to removing that caching code - any > benchmarks here would be appreciated. > > --John > > > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Anthony Ricaud <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > I haven't read the whole Sizzle code but I think the cache > > functionality can really slow down all DOM manipulations. > > I'm talking about attaching handlers to DOMAttrModified, > > DOMNodeInserted and DOMNodeRemoved events. From my previous talks with > > Dave Hyatt, he was saying that browsers have a way to never trigger > > these events if no one is attached to them. Attaching an handler, even > > small, could have huge performance implications. > > > I haven't run any test or benchmark but I believe you have tools for > > that. Have you seen any performance regression after landing Sizzle > > into jQuery ? This would only be visible on Firefox and Opera since > > they are the only browsers to implement these events. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
