html_url,issue_url,id,node_id,user,created_at,updated_at,author_association,body,reactions,issue,performed_via_github_app
https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/145#issuecomment-689186423,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/145,689186423,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4OTE4NjQyMw==,9599,2020-09-08T23:21:23Z,2020-09-08T23:21:23Z,OWNER,Fixed in PR #146.,"{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",688659182,
https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/pull/146#issuecomment-689185393,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/146,689185393,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4OTE4NTM5Mw==,9599,2020-09-08T23:17:42Z,2020-09-08T23:17:42Z,OWNER,"That seems like a reasonable approach to me, especially since this is going to be a pretty rare edge-case.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",688668680,
https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/155#issuecomment-689166404,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/155,689166404,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4OTE2NjQwNA==,9599,2020-09-08T22:20:03Z,2020-09-08T22:20:03Z,OWNER,"I'm going to update `sqlite-utils optimize` to also take an optional list of tables, for consistency.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",696045581,
https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/153#issuecomment-689165985,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/153,689165985,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4OTE2NTk4NQ==,9599,2020-09-08T22:18:52Z,2020-09-08T22:18:52Z,OWNER,"I've reverted this change again, because it turns out using the `rebuild` FTS mechanism is a better way of repairing this issue - see #155.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",695377804,
https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/155#issuecomment-689163158,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/155,689163158,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4OTE2MzE1OA==,9599,2020-09-08T22:10:27Z,2020-09-08T22:10:27Z,OWNER,"For the command version:

    sqlite-utils rebuild-fts mydb.db

This will rebuild all detected FTS tables. You can also specify one or more explicit tables:

    sqlite-utils rebuild-fts mydb.db dogs
","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",696045581,
https://github.com/dogsheep/dogsheep-beta/issues/19#issuecomment-688626037,https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/dogsheep-beta/issues/19,688626037,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4ODYyNjAzNw==,9599,2020-09-08T05:27:07Z,2020-09-08T05:27:07Z,MEMBER,"A really clever way to do this would be with triggers. The indexer script would add triggers to each of the database tables that it is indexing - each in their own database.

Those triggers would then maintain a `_index_queue_` table. This table would record the primary key of rows that are added, modified or deleted. The indexer could then work by reading through the `_index_queue_` table, re-indexing (or deleting) just the primary keys listed there, and then emptying the queue once it has finished.

This would add a small amount of overhead to insert/update/delete queries run against the table. My hunch is that the overhead would be miniscule, but I could still allow people to opt-out for tables that are so high traffic that this would matter.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",695556681,
https://github.com/dogsheep/dogsheep-beta/issues/19#issuecomment-688625430,https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/dogsheep-beta/issues/19,688625430,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4ODYyNTQzMA==,9599,2020-09-08T05:24:50Z,2020-09-08T05:24:50Z,MEMBER,"I thought about allowing tables to define a incremental indexing SQL query - maybe something that can return just records touched in the past hour, or records since a recorded ""last indexed record"" value.

The problem with this is deletes - if you delete a record, how does the indexer know to remove it? See #18  - that's already caused problems.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",695556681,
https://github.com/dogsheep/dogsheep-beta/issues/18#issuecomment-688623097,https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/dogsheep-beta/issues/18,688623097,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4ODYyMzA5Nw==,9599,2020-09-08T05:15:51Z,2020-09-08T05:15:51Z,MEMBER,"I'm inclined to go with the first, simpler option. I have longer term plans for efficient incremental index updates based on clever trickery with triggers.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",695553522,
https://github.com/dogsheep/dogsheep-beta/issues/18#issuecomment-688622995,https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/dogsheep-beta/issues/18,688622995,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4ODYyMjk5NQ==,9599,2020-09-08T05:15:21Z,2020-09-08T05:15:21Z,MEMBER,"Alternatively it could run as it does now but add a `DELETE FROM index1.search_index WHERE key not in (select key from ...)`.

I'm not sure which would be more efficient.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",695553522,