I have a HTML list of about 500 items and a "filter" box above it. I started by using jQuery to filter the list when I typed a letter (timing code added later):
$('#filter').keyup( function() {
var jqStart = (new Date).getTime();
var search = $(this).val().toLowerCase();
var $list = $('ul.ablist > li');
$list.each( function() {
if ( $(this).text().toLowerCase().indexOf(search) === -1 )
$(this).hide();
else
$(this).show();
} );
console.log('Time: ' + ((new Date).getTime() - jqStart));
} );
However, there was a couple of seconds delay after typing each letter (particularly the first letter). So I thought it may be slightly quicker if I used plain Javascript (I read recently that jQuery's each
function is particularly slow). Here's my JS equivalent:
document.getElementById('filter').addEventListener( 'keyup', function () {
var jsStart = (new Date).getTime();
var search = this.value.toLowerCase();
var list = document.querySelectorAll('ul.ablist > li');
for ( var i = 0; i < list.length; i++ )
{
if ( list[i].innerText.toLowerCase().indexOf(search) === -1 )
list[i].style.display = 'none';
else
list[i].style.display = 'block';
}
console.log('Time: ' + ((new Date).getTime() - jsStart));
}, false );
To my surprise however, the plain Javascript is up to 10 times slower than the jQuery equivalent. The jQuery version takes around 2-3 seconds to filter on each letter, while the Javascript version takes 17+ seconds! I'm using Google Chrome on Ubuntu Linux.
This isn't for anything really important so it doesn't need to be super efficient. But am I doing something really dumb with my Javascript here?
A. When it comes to speed, jQuery is quite fast for modern browsers on modern computers. So is pure JavaScript but both run very slow on older browsers and machines. Pure Javascript functions will be faster than jQuery operations.
jQuery in terms of speed is quite fast for modern browsers on modern computers. So is pure JavaScript. Both run drastically slower on older browsers and machines. Pure Javascript to access the DOM can be faster as you can cut the overhead that jQuery has on this.
jQuery is an easy way to get a result, but the way it loads is bad. The load process blocks everything else and makes your site feel slow. jQuery is also far from fast loading. It is heavy and slows page loading down a lot.
This article (#3) ran some performance tests and found that the jQuery . each function was about 10x as slow as the native javascript for loop. Using Firebug, it's possible to measure the time each of the two functions takes to run.
You could try using textContent
instead of innerText
, I think it should be faster. Also timing the list-generation and loop separately would tell if there is problem in list-generation.
Another best practice for javascript speed is caching the list.length
in a variable and calling the variable like:
l = list.length;
for (var i=0;i<l;i++):{ code here}
And maybe timing with jsperf would be better.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With