> My guess would be that the speed difference stems from the Sizzle
> strategy of searching inside-out from the expression. I.e. using the
> last part of the query first, and then filtering that set using the
> previous parts. Perhaps other libraries search outside-in?
Possibly - it definitely de
, "div + p", ".class"). As it is it's
faster than all the other major libraries. DOMAssistant has some tricks
which could definitely help here so I'll investigate and report back.
--John
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:37 AM, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> H
in to
that)
--John
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Arnar Birgisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 17:40, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I don't know what other MochiKitters say about including Sizzle.js as
> >> a s
> Well, that makes a big difference :) Now both MK+Sizzle and Sizzle
> standalone do the benchmark in 53 ms.
>
> John, this is an interesting testament to your implementation:
>
> On FF 3.1b1 with jit turned OFF the Sizzle selector code (i.e not
> using querySelectorAll) completes in 55ms.
> With
> Actually, I copied the contents of Sizzle into Selector.js which is
> part of MochiKit [1]. Integrating is then just a matter of calling
> Sizzle(...) in the correct place in the Selector API. Our plan is to
> completely remove the old Selector implementation, i.e. using Sizzle
> won't be option
a new global variable.
--John
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Arnar Birgisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 16:43, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Just to clarify: Are you turning on JIT in 3.1?
>
> JIT is off.
>
&g
, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Arnar Birgisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 15:52, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> That's... odd. Are there any selectors that are noticeably faster?
>>
>> Yes
Just to clarify: Are you turning on JIT in 3.1?
Do you have a diff of any change(s) that you've made to your copy of Sizzle?
--John
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Arnar Birgisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 15:52, John Resig <[
That's... odd. Are there any selectors that are noticeably faster?
Maybe something is failing?
--John
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 6:07 AM, Arnar Birgisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 13:38, Chris Lee-Messer
>>> p.s. I'm running firefox 3.1pre now with the JIT
jQuery already has a .noConflict() method that completely removes any
conflict with $.
You can find out more information here:
http://docs.jquery.com/Using_jQuery_with_Other_Libraries
and here:
http://docs.jquery.com/Core/jQuery.noConflict
--John
On 9/3/07, jack.tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
10 matches
Mail list logo
