Thank you!!
I will try your code soon. But the solution makes sense. I can't test in IE,
cause I'm a linux user and need install VMware or something like this.
I will feedback to you.
Dirceu Barquette
2008/12/2 Michael Geary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> You're right to question the requirement to add that many divs. But
> assuming
> it's necessary, that code is not the fastest way to do it. This would be
> faster, especially in IE:
>
> var n = 1600;
> var html = new Array( n + 2 );
> html[0] = '<div>';
> for( var i = 1; i <= n; ++i )
> html[i] = '<div></div>';
> html[i] = '</div>';
> $( html.join('') ).appendTo('#parentDiv');
>
> There are several reasons this is faster:
>
> 1) It stores the HTML text in an array, then joins the array when it's
> completed. This is much faster than string concatenation in IE. Also:
>
> 1a) It preallocates the array at its final length.
>
> 1b) It stores the values directly in the array elements instead of using
> array.push().
>
> 2) It wraps all of the divs in one container div, i.e. the resulting HTML
> (with whitespace added for clarity) is:
>
> <div>
> <div></div>
> ...
> <div></div>
> </div>
>
> Actually I'm not sure if #2 makes a difference in this case - I'd have to
> test it. But #1 can make a big difference.
>
> -Mike
>
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > I would start by evaluating the requirement for adding 1599 divs.
> > The way you have written it is probably the most efficent
> > cross browser way of appending that much content but it will
> > still crawl.
> >
> > On Dec 2, 10:53 am, "Dirceu Barquette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > The code:
> > > for (i = 0; i < 1600 ;i ++) {
> > > htm += '<div></div>';}
> > >
> > > $(htm).appendTo('#parentDiv');
> > >
> > > How can avoid overhead?
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > Dirceu Barquette
> >
>
>
