Develop Reference

jquery select all children after nth-child

I am working with jquery and creating show hide lists, I need hide all the child list items that follow the 6th child in the ul. Normally I would do this by setting the height and then changing the height on click of a click, but for this to work I need to add overflow:hidden to my css, and this is not an option.
How would I get all the child list elements that are greater than the 7th child?
Something like,
$("ul li:6n").domeSomething()

How would I get all the child list elements that are greater than the 7th child?
Select the element index = 7+
$("ul li:gt(6)").domeSomething()
:gt selector
The selector uses the zero base index:
Note that since JavaScript arrays use 0-based indexing, these selectors reflect that fact. This is why $('.myclass:gt(1)') selects elements after the second element in the document with the class myclass, rather than after the first. In contrast, :nth-child(n) uses 1-based indexing to conform to the CSS specification.

I wanted to write my answer only to discuss two previous answers: the answer from gdoron and the answer from neu-rah. If we would see on voting count one can see that the most reader find doron's answer better. I disagree and I try to explanation why.
The explanation you would find the documentation of :gt() Selector (see "Additional Notes:" here):
Because :gt() is a jQuery extension and not part of the CSS
specification, queries using :gt() cannot take advantage of the
performance boost provided by the native DOM querySelectorAll()
method. For better performance in modern browsers, use
$("your-pure-css-selector").slice(index) instead.
You can test the code with here or better here (with non-minimized code of jQuery 1.7.2). The code use just the statement $("ul li:gt(6)").css("color", "red");. You will better understand the problem if you start the demo in Developer Tools of Chrome with activated button "Pause on exceptions". You will see the following exception (it will be not the first one):
So you can see that the current implementation of jQuery try to use native querySelectorAll() of the web browser to get the best performance. After that the function $.makeArray will be used to make jQuery wrapper from the NodeList. In case of exception the line
return oldSizzle(query, context, extra, seed);
So you will have the best performance if you would use selectors supported by querySelectorAll(). For example
$("ul li").slice(7)
is better as
$("ul li:gt(6)")
I would you recommend to use more exact selectors whenever it's possible. For example if the parent <ul> element has id="menu1" then you can use
$("#menu1 >li").slice(7)
for the best results. It will help additionally in case of multiple <ul> elements on your page.
Someone can mention: the selector "ul li:gt(6)" works quickly enough. It's correct, but you should don't forget, that you use sometime selectors inside of loop or use it inside of functions which will be called inside of loops. So the difference between 10ms and 30ms can be much more clear if the execution time will be multiplicate to 100.
Moreover it somebody ask yourself the question how to implement some selection and get the answer, he/she will use the code pattern permanently. I think that it would be better to use the pattern which has performance advantage. Isn't so.
UPDATED: To clear the difference in performance of $("ul li:gt(6)"), $("ul li").slice(7) and $("#menu1 >li").slice(7) selectors I made additionally the demo. Everybody can test the difference in the web browser which he uses. You should additionally not forget, that in case of page having many other elements the id selector will work better.
On my computer the execution time of $("ul li").slice(7) and $("#menu1 >li").slice(7) are about the same (the page have very little elements) and is about 2.5-4.5 time better as the for $("ul li:gt(6)"). The results can depend on the number of li items, the number of elements on the page and many other things, but I hope that the test do clear shown that the usage of slice has performance advantage compared with the usage of :gt (exactly like we can read in the jqGrid documentation referenced before).

use slice to reduce a set
.slice(start[,end])
http://api.jquery.com/slice/
example (edited)
$("ul li").slice(6).doSomething(...)

Try this:
$('ul li:eq(6)').nextAll().domeSomething()

Performance in jQuery with selectors

i was wondering things...
If i need to get the content or append an click function to an div, as the structure of the selectors it's something like that:
$('body #content #sidebar .modalwindow #global-content')
i want to target #global-content, the final id of the selectors.
what its better?
Just target it as $('#global-content') and do what i wanna or give to it all the path?

$('#global-content') is the best selector to use, altough maybe the whole selector will be executed the same way (if jQuery starts from right to left, which I'm not sure it does). ID should be unique and getElementById() is the fastest native browser method, so $('#global-content') is the fastest possible selector.
Keep in mind also, that when you are searching for something exactly 1 level lower in the DOM tree, you can put > in the selector. Example:
$('body .content') is equialent to $('body').find('.content')
$('body > .content') is equialent to $('body').children('.content')
The second one is faster.

You can experiment and try out your selectors here

a similar question was asked in
jQuery Selectors, efficiency
the answer is that
$('#global-content')
is faster

if you know the id of your element and if your id is really unique (as it should be). It is faster to call directly the id >> $('#global-content').
Thus, it is interpreted by jquery to one of the fastest selector getElementById() instead of filtering the DOM.
Note: I know jquery 1.5 and higher (maybe even since 1.4) were optimized to select by id even if the jquery code was adding too much information but that's not the best way to rely on the framework to correct a bad coding

How to optimize $.find().first()?

I need to retrieve the first element.
I do that with this code...
$(element).find('.x').first();
As much as I understand, that code...
Retrieves all elements from element that matched .x,
Removes unneeded elements;
Is there any better way to do it? Like $.findOne() or something?

As per jQuery docs:
Because :first is a jQuery extension and not part of the CSS
specification, queries using :first cannot take advantage of the
performance boost provided by the native DOM querySelectorAll()
method. To achieve the best performance when using :first to select
elements, first select the elements using a pure CSS selector, then
use .filter(":first").
So rewriting your selector to:
$(element).find('.x').filter(":first")
or (this one will give you direct descendants only and will be faster than .find, unless you're looking for nested elements too)
$(element).children('.x').filter(":first")
should give you better results.
Update After valuable inputs from kingjiv and patrick dw (see comments),
it does seem that these two are faster than .filter(':first') contrary to what the doc claims.
$(element).find('.x').first(); // faster
$($(element).find('.x')[0]); // fastest

If you want to have it real fast, you should use native browsers methods. Modern browsers support querySelector [docs]:
var $result;
if(element.querySelector) {
$result = $(element.querySelector('.x'));
}
else {
$result = $(element).find('.x').first();
}
The usage is a bit limited, as it would only work if element is a single element and if the selector is a valid CSS selector. You could make a plugin out of it. But then, if you consider all cases, like multiple elements etc., there is probably no advantage anymore.
So again, if you have a very specific use case, this might be useful, if not, stick with jQuery.
Update: Turns out, making a plugin is still faster: jsPerf benchmark
(function($) {
$.fn.findOne = function(selector) {
try {
var element, i = 0, l = this.length;
while(i < l && (element = this[i].querySelector(selector)) === null) {
i++;
}
return $(element);
}
catch(e) {
return this.find(selector).first();
}
};
}(jQuery));
How this works:
The plugin iterates over the selected DOM elements and calls querySelector on each of them. Once an element is found, the loop will terminate and return the found element. There are two reasons an exception could occur:
The browsers does not support querySelector
The selector is not a pure CSS selector
In both cases the plugin will fall back to use the normal jQuery method.

As crazy as it seems, in every performance test I've seen, .first() has better performance than :first.
As most people are suggesting, it seems as though using $(element).find(".x:first") should have better performance. However, in reality .first is faster. I have not looked into the internals of jquery to figure out why.
http://jsperf.com/jquery-select-first
And apparently using [0] and then rewrapping in a jquery object is the fastest:
$($(element).find(".x")[0])
EDIT: See mrchief's answer for an explanation of why. Apparently they have now added it to the documentation.

This should be better
$(element).find('.x:first');

Use :first selector:
$(element).find('.x:first')

It's better to write:
$('a:first');
What you're writing is "in 'element', find '.x' and return the first one". And that can be expressed like this
$('.x:first', element);

how about using first-child pseudo class ? like
$(element).find('.x:first-child')
However it might generate issues if your structure is like
<div>
<p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p></p>
</div>
so actually it is not what you are looking for (if you mean general solution). Others mnetions :first and this seems to be the correct approach

Your bottleneck is really the .find(), which searches all the descendants instead of just the immediate children.
On top of that, you're searching for a class .x (which uses a jQuery custom search) instead of an ID or a tagname (which use native DOM methods).
I would use Mrchief's answer and then, if possible, fix those two bottlenecks to speed up your selector.

You could combine the $(element) and .find() calls using a descendant selector; I'm unsure of the performance comparison:
$("#element .x").first().hide();

That way is fine according to the jQuery documentation, or at least better than using :first selector.
You can try as alternatives .filter(":first") or get the first element using array accessor against the .find() result [0].
Also, instead of .find() you can change it to:
$('.x', element)
To narrow the search to .x elements inside element, intead of searching the whole document.

jQuery Selectors, efficiency

I have been reading more lately about the efficiency of the different selector engines. I know that jQuery uses the Sizzle engine and this blog post about some jQuery stuff mentioned that the Sizzle engine will break apart your selector into an array then parse left to right.
It then, from right to left, begins deciphering each item with regular expressions. What this also means is that the right-most part of your selector should be as specific as possible — for instance, an id or tag name.
My question is whether it is more efficient to run a selector with just the ID specified or the tag name as well:
var div = $('#someId');
//OR
var div = $('div#someId');
Since I write my CSS in the div#someId form I tend to do my selectors the same way, am I causing Sizzle to perform extra work (assuming QuerySelectorAll is unavailable)?

jQuery and Sizzle optimize the #id selector [source] to document.getElementById(id). I think they aren't able to optimize it like this with the tag#id.
The first is faster.
BTW specifying the tag name for an #id selector is over-specifying, as there can be only one tag with a given id on the document. Over-specifying is slower even in CSS.

Rather than speculating, let's measure it!
Here's a test case with this page loaded, then matching a random element with both methods.
Make sure you scroll right down to the bottom.
http://jsperf.com/which-jquery-sizzle-selector-is-faster#runner
As you might expect, a plain id is faster than a tag qualified one (reduction to getElementByID). This is the same when using classes.
Selecting by ID is massively faster than selecting by class, mainly as IDs are guaranteed to be unique.

If you are using jQuery, you can assume a browser with getElementById. $('#someId') can be converted to document.getElementById('someId'). $('div#someId') won't be, so it will be faster to lose the tag name.
jsPerf demonstrating this. The difference is enormous.

var div = $('#someId'); //should be faster
jQuery will use getElementById() for the above selector
var div = $('div#someId'); //would probably preform slower due to finding all the divs first
jQuery will use getElementsByTagName(), then iterate though the array of elements for the above selector
You should also remember, tag names should definately be used with class selectors (whenever possible)
var div = $('div.myclass') //faster than the statement below
versus
var div = $('.myclass') //slower

JsPerf: http://jsperf.com/jquery-id-vs-tagname-id
The first one is going to be faster because it only has to check the id. The second one runs the same check AND has to make sure the tagname is correct. div#id won't give you the element with id id unless it is a div

You can see from the source code here: http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.6.2.js in the function init.
The fastest selector is $('') which just returns an empty jQuery object immediately.
$('body') is next, which jQuery converts to document.body
The next is $('#id') which uses document.getElementById('id').
Any other selector such as $('div#id') will just become a call to $(document).find('div#id'). find() is very complex compared to any of those other solutions and uses Sizzle JS to select the div.

Fastest selector method in jquery and CSS - ID or not?

What is fastest in jquery/javascript?
$('#myID .myClass')
or
$('.myClass')
What is best to use in CSS?
#myID .myClass{}
or
.myClass{}
I see now that I should have explained better. Sorry!
Ofceauce ID is a faster selector in both CSS and JavaScript. But some times you need to use class since there are multiple selectors.
Say forexample that I have i BIG html document. In the middle of the page I have:
<div id="myID">
<a class="myClass">link1</a>
<a class="myClass">link1</a>
<a class="myClass">link1</a>
</div>
If I want to target all "myClass". Would it then be better to target the ID before targeting the classes? (then I wouldn't have to do domtravel of the entire HTML document) Eg.:
Would this:
$('#myID').find('.myClass')
Be faster than:
$('.myClass')

My testing on modern browsers suggests that you should go with either,
$('#id').find('.class') // or
$('.class')
but not,
$('#id .class')
Reason being that all modern browsers implement getElementsByClassName resulting in almost-constant time lookups by class name (assuming a hash implementation). Which browsers are modern is another subjective question.

They're roughly the same in most modern browsers since class-names are hashed internally. The difference is that older browsers don't have a .getElementsByClassName or equivalent method, so .myClass is parsed internally to jQuery and EVERY element in the dom is walked and checked for the classname (or it uses XPath when possible).
Always try to use #myID .myClass when possible as it allows jQuery to jump directly to #myID and traverse from there when necessary.

Let's just think logically about this for a second, and pretend that you didn't know anything about how a browser is built internally or how it accesses the DOM, but you assume that whatever it does is logical.
Therefore, doesn't it stand to reason that out of two selectors, the narrowest one would find you results faster?
You have two selectors, which translate to rough english as
Any element of the class myClass that is a child of the element with ID of myID
Any element of the class myClass
As for "What is best to use in CSS", this is completely subjective as it depends if you are intending to target all instances of .myClass or just those that are children of #myID.

Good question actually.
Say you have parsed DOM of N elements of max depth of D and CSS of S number of rules. Then the task of finding styles for all elements has computational complexity of roughly O(N*D*S).
Obviously not all of CSS selectors has the same computation complexity.
For example li.item selector and li[class ~= "item"] require exactly the same CPU resources as they are equivalents. li[class = "item"] can be computed faster as it does not require scan of white spaces.
#1 selector here:
#myID .myClass{} /* #1 */
.myClass{} /* #2 */
require more CPU resources as you need to do exactly the same amount of work as in case #2 plus you will need to scan parent/child chain (of max D elements) to find the element with "myID".
That is all about pure CSS selectors.
In jQuery & friends situation can be a bit different. Theoretically jQuery engine can use document.getElementById() to minimize the lookup set (so reduce the N number) but that will not match CSS behavior. Here is an example: http://jsfiddle.net/dnsUF/ . Here jQuery reports one element with #foo but there two such elements in fact.
Resume:
In CSS case #2 is faster
In jQuery case #1 can be faster (but technically may not be correct in CSS sense).
Here is my article about CSS selector complexity:
http://www.terrainformatica.com/2008/07/csss-and-computational-complexity-of-selectors/
And this one of how to improve it by using style sets:
http://www.terrainformatica.com/2010/09/style-sets-in-h-smile-core/

IDs will always be the fastest way to access an element, since they are unique.

Yeah, id is one of the fastest method to access element. Check it out this test http://mootools.net/slickspeed/.

#myID .myClass is definitely a better way to access the element assuming you have many elements to which the .myClass is applied.

Update - 2015 - Check yourself here
https://jsperf.com/id-vs-class-vs-tag-selectors/2
TL;DR;
Using ID $("#foo") is almost 4x faster than CSS $(".bar") on my chrome 41 on linux 64bits