Hi Stephen,
My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I've been sick and my
projects have gotten away from me.
We now return to the email I'd started writing before I lost track of
everything. ....
Thank you! Trebly so!
First, yes, the data is ordered based on a template in geoserver that
produces the KMLs. Unfortunately, I'd simplified the issue in order to ask
my question. There are actually two parcel sources, which each produce
different sets of fields. The snippet I included above is from the low
quality parcels. In the high quality parcels, MAP_ID becomes MAP_PAR_ID,
(hence my use of MAP_ as my search term). Similarly, the indices change
depending on the layer.
However, I can detect which layer i'm using (listed in the header), so in
theory I could detect and then use indices appropriate to the layer. Mind
you, on trying this, I can't get $foo.find(":header").text(); to work, so
I'm not quite sure how to get it to work. - http://jsbin.com/ujoco using
queryTarget for the second index attempt.
Given that the name of the fields change, I don't think I can use the hash
solution in any way other than the if layername == check that I was trying
before (which in any case requires a .find('header') to work).
Second, my thanks for the very cool site link. Definitely great for sample
snippets.
Thirdly, the sample speed measurement code - one reason for the question in
the first place was not knowing how to measure speed. The sample helps a
lot.
Thanks a lot, and sorry for the delay in responding,
Josh
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Stephan Veigl <stephan.ve...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> Hi Josh,
>
> are your data ordered? (e.g. MAP_ID is the first <li>, SITE_ADDRESS
> the second, ...)
>
> If yes you can use a index based approach (from 4.8ms to 0.9ms on IE).
> var $foo = $(foo);
> var data = $foo.find(".atr-value");
> var parcelOutput = 'Parcel ID: ' +
> $(data[0]).text() +
> '<br>' +
> 'Address: ' +
> $(data[1]).text();
>
>
> Otherwise you can build a hash table of your name - value attributes
> and du a hash lookup (from 4.8ms to 2.7ms on IE)
> var $foo = $(foo);
> var names = $foo.find(".atr-name");
> var data = $foo.find(".atr-value");
> var hash = {};
> for (var j=0; j<names.length; j++) {
> hash[$(names[j]).text()] = $(data[j]).text();
> }
> var parcelOutput = 'Parcel ID: ' +
> hash['MAP_ID'] +
> '<br>' +
> 'Address: ' +
> hash['SITE_ADDRESS'];
>
>
> see my examples on the profiling test page:
> http://jsbin.com/ifico/edit
>
> by(e)
> Stephan
>
>
> 2009/2/18 Josh Rosenthal <maric...@gmail.com>:
> > So... a question regarding selector efficiency.
> > The following snippet of HTML describes attributes associated with a
> polygon
> > in an KML. Its basically a table of data, contained as <span>s in <li>s
> in
> > a <ul>. Given this snippet, what would be the best (fastest) way to
> return
> > the values of MAP_ID and SITE_ADDRESS
> > foo = "<h4>GISDATA.ASSESSPARNC_POLY_PUBLIC</h4>
> >
> > <ul class="textattributes">
> > <li><strong><span class="atr-name">MAP_ID</span>:</strong> <span
> > class="atr-value">16-27</span></li>
> > <li><strong><span class="atr-name">SITE_ADDRESS</span>:</strong> <span
> > class="atr-value">396 Main St</span></li>
> > <li><strong><span class="atr-name">SITE_OTHER_FIELD</span>:</strong>
> <span
> > class="atr-value">Grat Data</span></li>
> > <li><strong><span class="atr-name">USE_CODE</span>:</strong> <span
> > class="atr-value">101</span></li>
> > <li><strong><span class="atr-name">TOWN_ID</span>:</strong> <span
> > class="atr-value">116</span></li>
> > <li><strong><span
> class="atr-name">WARREN_GROUP_05_MAP_ID</span>:</strong>
> > <span class="atr-value">M:0016 B:0000 L:0027</span></li>
> > <li><strong><span class="atr-name">ACRES</span>:</strong> <span
> > class="atr-value">0.67102373655</span></li>
> >
> > </ul>"
> >
> > The following works
> > parcelOutput = 'Parcel ID: ' +
> >
> jQuery(foo).find('li:contains("MAP_")').not('li:contains("WARREN_GROUP")').children('.atr-value').text()
> > + '<br>' + 'Address: ' +
> >
> jQuery(foo).find('li:contains("SITE_ADDRESS")').children('.atr-value').text();
> > Is there a better/more efficient way to return these values?
> > Thanks!
>
