issue_comments
6 rows where author_association = "OWNER" and "updated_at" is on date 2021-03-12 sorted by updated_at descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: issue_url, reactions
id | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at ▲ | author_association | body | reactions | issue | performed_via_github_app |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
797804869 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1259#issuecomment-797804869 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1259 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDc5NzgwNDg2OQ== | simonw 9599 | 2021-03-12T23:05:05Z | 2021-03-12T23:05:05Z | OWNER | I wonder if I could optimize facet suggestion in the same way? One challenge: the query time limit will apply to the full CTE query, not to the individual columns. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Research using CTEs for faster facet counts 830567275 | |
797801075 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1259#issuecomment-797801075 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1259 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDc5NzgwMTA3NQ== | simonw 9599 | 2021-03-12T22:53:56Z | 2021-03-12T22:55:16Z | OWNER | OK, a better comparison: https://global-power-plants.datasettes.com/global-power-plants?sql=WITH+data+as+%28%0D%0A++select%0D%0A++++%0D%0A++from%0D%0A++++%5Bglobal-power-plants%5D%0D%0A%29%2C%0D%0Acountry_long+as+%28select+%0D%0A++%27country_long%27+as+col%2C+country_long+as+value%2C+count%28%29+as+c+from+data+group+by+country_long%0D%0A++order+by+c+desc+limit+31%0D%0A%29%2C%0D%0Aprimary_fuel+as+%28%0D%0Aselect%0D%0A++%27primary_fuel%27+as+col%2C+primary_fuel+as+value%2C+count%28%29+as+c+from+data+group+by+primary_fuel%0D%0A++order+by+c+desc+limit+31%0D%0A%29%2C%0D%0Aowner+as+%28%0D%0Aselect%0D%0A++%27owner%27+as+col%2C+owner+as+value%2C+count%28%29+as+c+from+data+group+by+owner%0D%0A++order+by+c+desc+limit+31%0D%0A%29%0D%0Aselect++from+primary_fuel+union+select++from+country_long%0D%0Aunion+select++from+owner+order+by+col%2C+c+desc calculates facets against three columns. It takes 78.5ms* (and 34.5ms when I refreshed it, presumably after warming some SQLite caches of some sort). https://global-power-plants.datasettes.com/global-power-plants/global-power-plants?_facet=country_long&_facet=primary_fuel&_trace=1&_size=0 shows those facets with size=0 on the SQL query - and shows a SQL trace at the bottom of the page. The country_long facet query takes 45.36ms, owner takes 38.45ms, primary_fuel takes 49.04ms - so a total of 132.85ms That's against https://global-power-plants.datasettes.com/-/versions says SQLite 3.27.3 - so even on a SQLite version that doesn't materialize the CTEs there's a significant performance boost to doing all three facets in a single CTE query. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Research using CTEs for faster facet counts 830567275 | |
797790017 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1259#issuecomment-797790017 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1259 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDc5Nzc5MDAxNw== | simonw 9599 | 2021-03-12T22:22:12Z | 2021-03-12T22:22:12Z | OWNER | https://sqlite.org/lang_with.html
It looks like this optimization is completely unavailable on SQLite prior to 3.35.0 (released 12th March 2021). But I could still rewrite the faceting to work in this way, using the exact same SQL - it would just be significantly faster on 3.35.0+ (assuming it's actually faster in practice - would need to benchmark). |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Research using CTEs for faster facet counts 830567275 | |
797159434 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1193#issuecomment-797159434 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1193 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDc5NzE1OTQzNA== | simonw 9599 | 2021-03-12T01:01:54Z | 2021-03-12T01:01:54Z | OWNER | DuckDB has a read-only mechanism: https://duckdb.org/docs/api/python
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Research plugin hook for alternative database backends 787173276 | |
797159221 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1250#issuecomment-797159221 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1250 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDc5NzE1OTIyMQ== | simonw 9599 | 2021-03-12T01:01:17Z | 2021-03-12T01:01:17Z | OWNER | This is a duplicate of #1193. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Research: Plugin hook for alternative database connections 824067604 | |
797158641 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/670#issuecomment-797158641 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/670 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDc5NzE1ODY0MQ== | simonw 9599 | 2021-03-12T00:59:49Z | 2021-03-12T00:59:49Z | OWNER |
It looks like the answer to this is yes - I'll need users to setup read-only credentials. Here's a TIL about that: https://til.simonwillison.net/postgresql/read-only-postgresql-user |
{ "total_count": 1, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 1, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Prototoype for Datasette on PostgreSQL 564833696 |
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 4