issue_comments

Table actions

3 rows where author_association = "CONTRIBUTOR", issue = 688668680 and user = 96218 sorted by updated_at descending

✎ View and edit SQL

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

Suggested facets: created_at (date), updated_at (date)

user 1

  • simonwiles · 3 ✖

issue 1

  • Handle case where subsequent records (after first batch) include extra columns · 3 ✖

author_association 1

  • CONTRIBUTOR · 3 ✖
id html_url issue_url node_id user created_at updated_at ▲ author_association body reactions issue performed_via_github_app
688573964 https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/pull/146#issuecomment-688573964 https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/146 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4ODU3Mzk2NA== simonwiles 96218 2020-09-08T01:55:07Z 2020-09-08T01:55:07Z CONTRIBUTOR

Okay, I've rewritten this PR to preserve the batching behaviour but still fix #145, and rebased the branch to account for the db.execute() api change. It's not terribly sophisticated -- if it attempts to insert a batch which has too many variables, the exception is caught, the batch is split in two and each half is inserted separately, and then it carries on as before with the same batch_size. In the edge case where this gets triggered, subsequent batches will all be inserted in two groups too if they continue to have the same number of columns (which is presumably reasonably likely). Do you reckon this is acceptable when set against the awkwardness of recalculating the batch_size on the fly?

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
 Handle case where subsequent records (after first batch) include extra columns 688668680  
688481317 https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/pull/146#issuecomment-688481317 https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/146 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4ODQ4MTMxNw== simonwiles 96218 2020-09-07T19:18:55Z 2020-09-07T19:18:55Z CONTRIBUTOR

Just force-pushed to update d042f9c with more formatting changes to satisfy black==20.8b1 and pass the GitHub Actions "Test" workflow.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
 Handle case where subsequent records (after first batch) include extra columns 688668680  
688479163 https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/pull/146#issuecomment-688479163 https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/146 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4ODQ3OTE2Mw== simonwiles 96218 2020-09-07T19:10:33Z 2020-09-07T19:11:57Z CONTRIBUTOR

@simonw -- I've gone ahead updated the documentation to reflect the changes introduced in this PR. IMO it's ready to merge now.

In writing the documentation changes, I begin to wonder about the value and role of batch_size at all, tbh. May I assume it was originally intended to prevent using the entire row set to determine columns and column types, and that this was a performance consideration? If so, this PR entirely undermines its purpose. I've been passing in excess of 500,000 rows at a time to insert_all() with these changes and although I'm sure the performance difference is measurable it's not really noticeable; given #145, I don't know that any performance advantages outweigh the problems doing it this way removes. What do you think about just dropping the argument and defaulting to the maximum batch_size permissible given SQLITE_MAX_VARS? Are there other reasons one might want to restrict batch_size that I've overlooked? I could open a new issue to discuss/implement this.

Of course the documentation will need to change again too if/when something is done about #147.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
 Handle case where subsequent records (after first batch) include extra columns 688668680  

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object

CSV options: 

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]);