issue_comments
8 rows where "created_at" is on date 2023-01-29 sorted by reactions
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: issue_url, updated_at (date)
id | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at | author_association | body | reactions ▼ | issue | performed_via_github_app |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1407523547 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1973#issuecomment-1407523547 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1973 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T5Rrb | cldellow 193185 | 2023-01-29T00:40:31Z | 2023-01-29T00:40:31Z | CONTRIBUTOR | A +1 for switching to Otherwise you get vanilla |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
render_cell plugin hook's row object is not a sqlite.Row 1515815014 | |
1407558284 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/2008#issuecomment-1407558284 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2008 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T5aKM | cldellow 193185 | 2023-01-29T04:23:58Z | 2023-01-29T04:24:27Z | CONTRIBUTOR | Ack, this PR is broken. I see now that the That fixes the overcounting, but I think can undercount when the rows have the same data, eg a view like:
will produce a count of If I guess a general solution would be to compute a window function so we have a distinct ID for each row. Will fiddle to see if I can get that working. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
array facet: don't materialize unnecessary columns 1560982210 | |
1407561308 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/2008#issuecomment-1407561308 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2008 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T5a5c | cldellow 193185 | 2023-01-29T04:50:50Z | 2023-01-29T04:50:50Z | CONTRIBUTOR | I pushed a revised version which ends up being faster -- the example which currently takes 4 seconds now runs in 500ms. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
array facet: don't materialize unnecessary columns 1560982210 | |
1407567753 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/2008#issuecomment-1407567753 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2008 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T5ceJ | simonw 9599 | 2023-01-29T05:39:54Z | 2023-01-29T05:40:34Z | OWNER | I absolutely love this performance boost - really nice find. One concern: this will be the first time Datasette ships a core feature that uses window functions. Window functions were added to SQLite in version 3.25.0 on 2018-09-15 - which means it's still very common for Datasette to run on versions that don't yet support them. So I see two options: - Detect window function support and switch between the old implementation and this better, new one - Detect window functions and disable the facet-by-JSON feature entirely if they are missing I like the first option a bit better. This also leads to a tricky CI challenge: Datasette needs to be able to run its test suite against more than one SQLite version to confidently test this feature going forward. I don't yet have a good GitHub Actions recipe for this, but I really need one - for Might be able to use this trick for that: https://til.simonwillison.net/sqlite/ld-preload |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
array facet: don't materialize unnecessary columns 1560982210 | |
1407568923 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/2008#issuecomment-1407568923 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2008 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T5cwb | simonw 9599 | 2023-01-29T05:47:36Z | 2023-01-29T05:47:36Z | OWNER |
We don't have any performance tests yet - would be a useful thing to add, I've not built anything like that before (at least not in CI, I've always done as-hoc performance testing using something like Locust) so I don't have a great feel for how it could work. I see not having to change the tests at all for this change as a really positive sign. If you find any behaviour differences between this and the previous that's a sign we should add a mother test or two specifying the behaviour we want. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
array facet: don't materialize unnecessary columns 1560982210 | |
1407716963 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/2008#issuecomment-1407716963 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2008 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T6A5j | cldellow 193185 | 2023-01-29T17:04:03Z | 2023-01-29T17:04:03Z | CONTRIBUTOR | Performance tests - I think most places don't have them as a formal gate enforced by CI. TypeScript and scalac seem to have tests that run to capture timings. The timings are included by a bot as a comment or build check, and also stored in a database so you can graph changes over time to spot regressions. Probably overkill for Datasette! Window functions - oh, good point. Looks like Ubuntu shipped JSON1 support as far back as sqlite 3.11. I'll let this PR linger until there's a way to run against different SQLite versions. For now, I'm shipping this with Tests - there actually did end up being test changes to capture the undercount bug of the current implementation, so the current implementation would fail against the new tests. Perhaps a non-window function version could be written that uses |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
array facet: don't materialize unnecessary columns 1560982210 | |
1407733793 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/2008#issuecomment-1407733793 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2008 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T6FAh | simonw 9599 | 2023-01-29T18:17:40Z | 2023-01-29T18:17:40Z | OWNER |
Had an interesting conversation about this just now: https://fedi.simonwillison.net/@simon/109773800944614366 There's a risk that different runs will return different results due to the shared resource nature of GitHub Actions runners, but a good fix for that is to run comparative tests where you run the benchmark against e.g. both |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
array facet: don't materialize unnecessary columns 1560982210 | |
1407767434 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1696#issuecomment-1407767434 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1696 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T6NOK | cldellow 193185 | 2023-01-29T20:56:20Z | 2023-01-29T20:56:20Z | CONTRIBUTOR | I did some horrible things in https://github.com/cldellow/datasette-ui-extras/issues/2 to enable this in my plugin -- example here: https://dux-demo.fly.dev/cooking/posts?_facet=owner_user_id&owner_user_id=67 The implementation relies on two things:
This got me thinking: it'd be neat if the list of operators that the filters UI supported wasn't a closed set. A motivating example: adding a geospatial |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Show foreign key label when filtering 1186696202 |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE [issue_comments] ( [html_url] TEXT, [issue_url] TEXT, [id] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, [node_id] TEXT, [user] INTEGER REFERENCES [users]([id]), [created_at] TEXT, [updated_at] TEXT, [author_association] TEXT, [body] TEXT, [reactions] TEXT, [issue] INTEGER REFERENCES [issues]([id]) , [performed_via_github_app] TEXT); CREATE INDEX [idx_issue_comments_issue] ON [issue_comments] ([issue]); CREATE INDEX [idx_issue_comments_user] ON [issue_comments] ([user]);
issue 3