Get child node index

Question

In straight up javascript (i.e., no extensions such as jQuery, etc.), is there a way to determine a child node's index inside of its parent node without iterating over and comparing all children nodes?

E.g.,

var child = document.getElementById('my_element');
var parent = child.parentNode;
var childNodes = parent.childNodes;
var count = childNodes.length;
var child_index;
for (var i = 0; i < count; ++i) {
  if (child === childNodes[i]) {
    child_index = i;
    break;
  }
}

Is there a better way to determine the child's index?

Answer 1

I've become fond of using indexOf for this. Because indexOf is on Array.prototype and parent.children is a NodeList, you have to use call(); It's kind of ugly but it's a one liner and uses functions that any javascript dev should be familiar with anyhow.

var child = document.getElementById('my_element');
var parent = child.parentNode;
// The equivalent of parent.children.indexOf(child)
var index = Array.prototype.indexOf.call(parent.children, child);

Answer 2

ES6:

Array.from(element.parentNode.children).indexOf(element)

Explanation :

• element.parentNode.children → Returns the brothers of element, including that element.

• Array.from → Casts the constructor of children to an Array object

• indexOf → You can apply indexOf because you now have an Array object.

Answer 3

you can use the previousSibling property to iterate back through the siblings until you get back null and count how many siblings you've encountered:

var i = 0;
while( (child = child.previousSibling) != null ) 
  i++;
//at the end i will contain the index.

Please note that in languages like Java, there is a getPreviousSibling() function, however in JS this has become a property -- previousSibling.

Use previousElementSibling or nextElementSibling to ignore text and comment nodes.

Answer 4

ES—Shorter

[...element.parentNode.children].indexOf(element);

The spread Operator is a shortcut for that

Answer 5

I hypothesize that given an element where all of its children are ordered on the document sequentially, the fastest way should be to do a binary search, comparing the document positions of the elements. However, as introduced in the conclusion the hypothesis is rejected. The more elements you have, the greater the potential for performance. For example, if you had 256 elements, then (optimally) you would only need to check just 16 of them! For 65536, only 256! The performance grows to the power of 2! See more numbers/statistics. Visit Wikipedia

(function(constructor){
   'use strict';
    Object.defineProperty(constructor.prototype, 'parentIndex', {
      get: function() {
        var searchParent = this.parentElement;
        if (!searchParent) return -1;
        var searchArray = searchParent.children,
            thisOffset = this.offsetTop,
            stop = searchArray.length,
            p = 0,
            delta = 0;
        
        while (searchArray[p] !== this) {
            if (searchArray[p] > this)
                stop = p + 1, p -= delta;
            delta = (stop - p) >>> 1;
            p += delta;
        }
        
        return p;
      }
    });
})(window.Element || Node);

Then, the way that you use it is by getting the 'parentIndex' property of any element. For example, check out the following demo.

(function(constructor){
   'use strict';
    Object.defineProperty(constructor.prototype, 'parentIndex', {
      get: function() {
        var searchParent = this.parentNode;
        if (searchParent === null) return -1;
        var childElements = searchParent.children,
            lo = -1, mi, hi = childElements.length;
        while (1 + lo !== hi) {
            mi = (hi + lo) >> 1;
            if (!(this.compareDocumentPosition(childElements[mi]) & 0x2)) {
                hi = mi;
                continue;
            }
            lo = mi;
        }
        return childElements[hi] === this ? hi : -1;
      }
    });
})(window.Element || Node);

output.textContent = document.body.parentIndex;
output2.textContent = document.documentElement.parentIndex;

Body parentIndex is <b id="output"></b><br />
documentElements parentIndex is <b id="output2"></b>

Limitations

• This implementation of the solution will not work in IE8 and below.

Binary VS Linear Search On 200,000 elements (might crash some mobile browsers, BEWARE!):

• In this test, we will see how long it takes for a linear search to find the middle element VS a binary search. Why the middle element? Because it is at the average location of all the other locations, so it best represents all of the possible locations.

Binary Search

(function(constructor){
   'use strict';
    Object.defineProperty(constructor.prototype, 'parentIndexBinarySearch', {
      get: function() {
        var searchParent = this.parentNode;
        if (searchParent === null) return -1;
        var childElements = searchParent.children,
            lo = -1, mi, hi = childElements.length;
        while (1 + lo !== hi) {
            mi = (hi + lo) >> 1;
            if (!(this.compareDocumentPosition(childElements[mi]) & 0x2)) {
                hi = mi;
                continue;
            }
            lo = mi;
        }
        return childElements[hi] === this ? hi : -1;
      }
    });
})(window.Element || Node);
test.innerHTML = '<div> </div> '.repeat(200e+3);
// give it some time to think:
requestAnimationFrame(function(){
  var child=test.children.item(99.9e+3);
  var start=performance.now(), end=Math.round(Math.random());
  for (var i=200 + end; i-- !== end; )
    console.assert( test.children.item(
        Math.round(99.9e+3+i+Math.random())).parentIndexBinarySearch );
  var end=performance.now();
  setTimeout(function(){
    output.textContent = 'It took the binary search ' + ((end-start)*10).toFixed(2) + 'ms to find the 999 thousandth to 101 thousandth children in an element with 200 thousand children.';
    test.remove();
    test = null; // free up reference
  }, 125);
}, 125);

<output id=output> </output><br />
<div id=test style=visibility:hidden;white-space:pre></div>

Backwards (`lastIndexOf`) Linear Search

(function(t){"use strict";var e=Array.prototype.lastIndexOf;Object.defineProperty(t.prototype,"parentIndexLinearSearch",{get:function(){return e.call(t,this)}})})(window.Element||Node);
test.innerHTML = '<div> </div> '.repeat(200e+3);
// give it some time to think:
requestAnimationFrame(function(){
  var child=test.children.item(99e+3);
  var start=performance.now(), end=Math.round(Math.random());
  for (var i=2000 + end; i-- !== end; )
    console.assert( test.children.item(
        Math.round(99e+3+i+Math.random())).parentIndexLinearSearch );
  var end=performance.now();
  setTimeout(function(){
    output.textContent = 'It took the backwards linear search ' + (end-start).toFixed(2) + 'ms to find the 999 thousandth to 101 thousandth children in an element with 200 thousand children.';
    test.remove();
    test = null; // free up reference
  }, 125);
});

<output id=output> </output><br />
<div id=test style=visibility:hidden;white-space:pre></div>

Forwards (`indexOf`) Linear Search

(function(t){"use strict";var e=Array.prototype.indexOf;Object.defineProperty(t.prototype,"parentIndexLinearSearch",{get:function(){return e.call(t,this)}})})(window.Element||Node);
test.innerHTML = '<div> </div> '.repeat(200e+3);
// give it some time to think:
requestAnimationFrame(function(){
  var child=test.children.item(99e+3);
  var start=performance.now(), end=Math.round(Math.random());
  for (var i=2000 + end; i-- !== end; )
    console.assert( test.children.item(
        Math.round(99e+3+i+Math.random())).parentIndexLinearSearch );
  var end=performance.now();
  setTimeout(function(){
    output.textContent = 'It took the forwards linear search ' + (end-start).toFixed(2) + 'ms to find the 999 thousandth to 101 thousandth children in an element with 200 thousand children.';
    test.remove();
    test = null; // free up reference
  }, 125);
});

<output id=output> </output><br />
<div id=test style=visibility:hidden;white-space:pre></div>

PreviousElementSibling Counter Search

Counts the number of PreviousElementSiblings to get the parentIndex.

(function(constructor){
   'use strict';
    Object.defineProperty(constructor.prototype, 'parentIndexSiblingSearch', {
      get: function() {
        var i = 0, cur = this;
        do {
            cur = cur.previousElementSibling;
            ++i;
        } while (cur !== null)
        return i; //Returns 3
      }
    });
})(window.Element || Node);
test.innerHTML = '<div> </div> '.repeat(200e+3);
// give it some time to think:
requestAnimationFrame(function(){
  var child=test.children.item(99.95e+3);
  var start=performance.now(), end=Math.round(Math.random());
  for (var i=100 + end; i-- !== end; )
    console.assert( test.children.item(
        Math.round(99.95e+3+i+Math.random())).parentIndexSiblingSearch );
  var end=performance.now();
  setTimeout(function(){
    output.textContent = 'It took the PreviousElementSibling search ' + ((end-start)*20).toFixed(2) + 'ms to find the 999 thousandth to 101 thousandth children in an element with 200 thousand children.';
    test.remove();
    test = null; // free up reference
  }, 125);
});

<output id=output> </output><br />
<div id=test style=visibility:hidden;white-space:pre></div>

No Search

For benchmarking what the result of the test would be if the browser optimized out the searching.

test.innerHTML = '<div> </div> '.repeat(200e+3);
// give it some time to think:
requestAnimationFrame(function(){
  var start=performance.now(), end=Math.round(Math.random());
  for (var i=2000 + end; i-- !== end; )
    console.assert( true );
  var end=performance.now();
  setTimeout(function(){
    output.textContent = 'It took the no search ' + (end-start).toFixed(2) + 'ms to find the 999 thousandth to 101 thousandth children in an element with 200 thousand children.';
    test.remove();
    test = null; // free up reference
  }, 125);
});

<output id=output> </output><br />
<div id=test style=visibility:hidden></div>

The Conculsion

However, after viewing the results in Chrome, the results are the opposite of what was expected. The dumber forwards linear search was a surprising 187 ms, 3850%, faster than the binary search. Evidently, Chrome somehow magically outsmarted the console.assert and optimized it away, or (more optimistically) Chrome internally uses numerical indexing system for the DOM, and this internal indexing system is exposed through the optimizations applied to Array.prototype.indexOf when used on a HTMLCollection object.

Answer 6

Adding a (prefixed for safety) element.getParentIndex():

Element.prototype.PREFIXgetParentIndex = function() {
  return Array.prototype.indexOf.call(this.parentNode.children, this);
}

Answer 7

Could you do something like this:

var index = Array.prototype.slice.call(element.parentElement.children).indexOf(element);

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Node/parentElement

Answer 8

If your element is <tr> or <td>, you can use the rowIndex/cellIndex property.

Answer 9

Use binary search algorithm to improve the performace when the node has large quantity siblings.

function getChildrenIndex(ele){
    //IE use Element.sourceIndex
    if(ele.sourceIndex){
        var eles = ele.parentNode.children;
        var low = 0, high = eles.length-1, mid = 0;
        var esi = ele.sourceIndex, nsi;
        //use binary search algorithm
        while (low <= high) {
            mid = (low + high) >> 1;
            nsi = eles[mid].sourceIndex;
            if (nsi > esi) {
                high = mid - 1;
            } else if (nsi < esi) {
                low = mid + 1;
            } else {
                return mid;
            }
        }
    }
    //other browsers
    var i=0;
    while(ele = ele.previousElementSibling){
        i++;
    }
    return i;
}

Answer 10

I had issue with text nodes, and it was showing wrong index. Here is version to fix it.

function getChildNodeIndex(elem)
{   
    let position = 0;
    while ((elem = elem.previousSibling) != null)
    {
        if(elem.nodeType != Node.TEXT_NODE)
            position++;
    }

    return position;
}

Answer 11

Object.defineProperties(Element.prototype,{
group : {
    value: function (str, context) {
        // str is valid css selector like :not([attr_name]) or .class_name
        var t = "to_select_siblings___";
        var parent = context ? context : this.parentNode;
        parent.setAttribute(t, '');
        var rez = document.querySelectorAll("[" + t + "] " + (context ? '' : ">") + this.nodeName + (str || "")).toArray();
        parent.removeAttribute(t);            
        return rez;  
    }
},
siblings: {
    value: function (str, context) {
        var rez=this.group(str,context);
        rez.splice(rez.indexOf(this), 1);
        return rez; 
    }
},
nth: {  
    value: function(str,context){
       return this.group(str,context).indexOf(this);
    }
}
}

Ex

/* html */
<ul id="the_ul">   <li></li> ....<li><li>....<li></li>   </ul>

 /*js*/
 the_ul.addEventListener("click",
    function(ev){
       var foo=ev.target;
       foo.setAttribute("active",true);
       foo.siblings().map(function(elm){elm.removeAttribute("active")});
       alert("a click on li" + foo.nth());
     });

Answer 12

thanks to the answer by @Liv

now i always use,

Node.prototype.index=function() {
    nc=this;
    ind=-1;
    while(nc!=null){
      nc=nc.previousSibling
      ind++;
    }
    return ind
  }

on my codes,

usage:

var child = document.getElementById('my_element');

child.index();

Element.index() returns an integer first child is 0

Answer 13

For me this code is more clear

const myElement = ...;
const index = [...document.body.children].indexOf(myElement);

Answer 14

<body>
    <section>
        <section onclick="childIndex(this)">child a</section>
        <section onclick="childIndex(this)">child b</section>
        <section onclick="childIndex(this)">child c</section>
    </section>
    <script>
        function childIndex(e){
            let i = 0;
            while (e.parentNode.children[i] != e) i++;
            alert('child index '+i);
        }
    </script>
</body>