Avoid unnecessary function calls. The following uses only 1 extra call
to hasClass:
Element.implement({
removeAllClassExcept: function(klass) {
this.className = this.hasClass(klass) ? klass : '';
return this;
}
});
Performance is better ("time4"): http://mootools.net/shell/J7ySB/1/
On Feb 23, 4:08 pm, Yann Leretaille <[email protected]>
wrote:
> could somebody test this one with 100,100 & 10 Elements?
>
> My results:
> n
> FF 3.6, Linux, 64Bit FF 2.5.8,WinXP, 32Bit
> 1000
> time1::: 0.000033
> *time1a: 0.000020*
> time2::: 0.000030
> time3::: 0.000024time1::: 0.000055
> *time1a: 0.000036*
> time2::: 0.000048
> time3::: 0.000038
> 100
> time1::: 0.000045
> *time1a: 0.000027*
> time2::: 0.000040
> time3::: 0.000032time1::: 0.000058
> *time1a: 0.000037*
> time2::: 0.000051
> time3::: 0.000040
> 10
> time1::: 0.000052
> *time1a: 0.000026*
> time2::: 0.000045
> time3::: 0.000042**time1::: 0.000077
> *time1a: 0.000046*
> time2::: 0.000072
> time3::: 0.000059
>
> http://mootools.net/shell/J7ySB/
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 17:45, Yann Leretaille
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > I understand your point. Actually, benchmarking seems particualry difficult
> > for this one.
> > I created a mooshell wich creates a list with 1000 Elements, wich have 0-3
> > classes, with or without base_class.
> > The list ist cloned for each benchmark and i ran each methos is runned 10
> > times.
> > Here are the results:
>
> > - Method1 (my method):
> > - return this.set('class',new RegExp(klass).exec(this.get('class')))
> > ;
>
> > - Method1a (my method, *precompiled RegExp* )
> > - regexp=new RegExp(klass)
> > - this.each(function(e) { e.set('class',regexp.exec(e.get('class')))
> > });
>
> > - Method2 (Roman):
> > - return this.set('class', this.get('class').split(' ').filter(
> > function(c){return c == this },klass)[0]);
> > - Method3 (hazlema):
> > - return this.hasClass(klass) ? this.set("class", klass) : this.erase(
> > "class");
>
> > Results (1000 items):
>
> > - time1: 0.0000340
> > - *time1a: 0.0000216*
> > - time2: 0.0000306
> > - time3: 0.0000234
>
> > It seems to depend on how much items you have what the fastet method is.
> > The strange thing is that i tried it with 1,50,10,100,500,1000 items and now
> > Method1a is always faster! Perhaps Firefox is caching the RegExp...
>
> >http://mootools.net/shell/J7ySB/
>
> > Yann
>
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 06:47, Sanford Whiteman <
> > [email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > - Method1: 0.000265s
> >> > - Method2: 0.000297s
> >> > - Method3: 0.000279s
>
> >> > Looks like if my method is slightly faster...
>
> >> Mmm, something is wrong with your benchmark.
>
> >> Comparing your regex
>
> >> [f1] t.set('class',new RegExp('base_class').exec(t.get('class')));
>
> >> with the straightforward
>
> >> [f2] t.hasClass('base_class') ? t.set('class','base_class') :
> >> t.erase('class');
>
> >> averaging over 10 runs of 1000 function calls each, the regex approach
> >> is markedly slower.
>
> >> [f1]:
>
> >> .016 when base_class is present on the element
> >> .012 when base_class is not present
>
> >> [f2]:
>
> >> .007 when base_class is present
> >> .004 when base_class is not present
>
> >> You can eke out more performance by compiling the RegEx, but the basic
> >> approach still beats it out significantly, 50-100% faster depending on
> >> whether the target class is present.
>
> >> [f1-compiled]:
>
> >> .011 when base_class is present on the element
> >> .008 when base_class is not present
>
> >> Seehttp://mootools.net/shell/B8pPc/7/.
>
> >> - S.
