Based on the different answers received, the only solution using jQuery without implementing our own selector function is a basic selector with ":first" or followed by ".eq(0)" for jQuery.

I wanted to know if their were any kind of max depth option or a function like "get only the first result then return it" but it seems it's not available in jQuery since even :first in the selector does not seem to be faster that a call to .eq(0) Thanks for all the ments.

Original post:

I'm wondering if a function like "closest" is available for the children elements.

Let's say I have an html structure like that:

div.container > [* some elements, I can't use children()] > div.sub1 > div.sub2 > div.sub1 > [other various children elements]

If I want the first div.sub1 I'm doing something like:

$("div.container").find("div.sub1").eq(0)

The problem is that we cannot specify a "max depth" so it will be searched in ALL the children. I see it as a performance issue.

I'm talking about "max depth" because I could list the possibles selectors cases but it would be a long list, about 6-10 items depending on the case.

Anyone has a solution for this?

Thank you

Based on the different answers received, the only solution using jQuery without implementing our own selector function is a basic selector with ":first" or followed by ".eq(0)" for jQuery.

I wanted to know if their were any kind of max depth option or a function like "get only the first result then return it" but it seems it's not available in jQuery since even :first in the selector does not seem to be faster that a call to .eq(0) Thanks for all the ments.

Original post:

I'm wondering if a function like "closest" is available for the children elements.

Let's say I have an html structure like that:

div.container > [* some elements, I can't use children()] > div.sub1 > div.sub2 > div.sub1 > [other various children elements]

If I want the first div.sub1 I'm doing something like:

$("div.container").find("div.sub1").eq(0)

The problem is that we cannot specify a "max depth" so it will be searched in ALL the children. I see it as a performance issue.

I'm talking about "max depth" because I could list the possibles selectors cases but it would be a long list, about 6-10 items depending on the case.

Anyone has a solution for this?

Thank you

• javascript
• jquery
• children
• closest
• inverse

• Why can't you use children()? – Matt Commented Jan 25, 2012 at 18:26
• 1 @Matt .children() only checks 1 level deep (e.g. .container > .child'). – PeeHaa Commented Jan 25, 2012 at 18:27
• 3 Three days ago, the same question was asked: similar to jquery .closest() but traversing descedents?. Duplicate? – Rob W Commented Jan 25, 2012 at 18:31
• 1 @RobW: Not a dupe, as the OP wants to be able to limit the depth – qwertymk Commented Jan 25, 2012 at 18:37
• 1 If you are looking for max performance, then you will want to write your own selector function (not using jQuery) that traverses the hierarchy and stops when it finds the first match. If you are looking for best practice with jQuery, just use :first or .eq(0) and be on to the next piece of code to write. Your question is unclear what you really want so we cannot help further without understanding the real goals. – jfriend00 Commented Jan 25, 2012 at 19:05

1 Answer 1

You can possibly get this by bining the child-selector (>) and the wildcard (*) at various amounts:

// max-depth: grand-children
$('.container').find('> .sub1, > * > .sub1').first();

// max-depth: great-grand-children
$('.container').find('> .sub1, > * > .sub1, > * > * > .sub1').first();

And, since this can be rather tedious to have hard-coded, you can use a custom method to build the selector for you:

jQuery.fn.findAtDepth = function (selector, maxDepth) {
    var depths = [], i;

    if (maxDepth > 0) {
        for (i = 1; i <= maxDepth; i++) {
            depths.push('> ' + new Array(i).join('* > ') + selector);
        }

        selector = depths.join(', ');
    }

    return this.find(selector);
};

$('.container').findAtDepth('.sub1', 3).first();

Examle: http://jsfiddle/V82f3/2/

The primary pitfall of this is that it's limited to relatively simple selectors (or possibly just to single selectors):

$('.container').findAtDepth('.sub1, .sub2', 3).first();

This will search for .sub1 at a max depth of 3, but for .sub2 at any depth.