I did some further performance testing on the menus - will soon blog
about it on http://blog.dynatrace.com
I ran tests with 50, 100 and 500 menu items. It seems like 50 elements
take roughly 300ms to process. Performance in that case scales up
linear meaning that 100 take 600ms and 500 take 3s. the
Thanks so much for doing that! It does look like an improvement.
Probably not an urgent one, but definitely worth doing for the next
version.
It seems unintuitive that creating a new jQuery object would be less
costly than selecting from an existing collection, but there you go.
Can't argue with s
Hi Joel
I did some more testing. I wrote a small sample with 3 different
menus: 50 items, 100 items and 500 items (I know - 500 is a lot - but
the page that I've analyzed actually had that many)
I made the change to the library. For the 500 elements the superfish
method takes 3459ms on my laptop w
I am not able to test it - at least not on the page I've found the
problem as the page is not under my control.
I am doing some web page analysis and discovered this issue and
believe that this change can significantly improve the performance.
Once I find some time I can try it out on a local web-
Hello,
You would still need to wrap that "this" in a jQuery object, otherwise
it refers to a DOM object. At that point, I would think that referring
to an existing jQuery object, as Superfish currently does, would be
preferrable. Are you able to test this, to be sure?
Thanks
Joel Birch
5 matches
Mail list logo
