issue_comments
9 rows where "created_at" is on date 2020-09-08, "updated_at" is on date 2020-09-08 and user = 9599 sorted by updated_at descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: issue_url, created_at (date), updated_at (date)
user 1
- simonw · 9 ✖
id | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at ▲ | author_association | body | reactions | issue | performed_via_github_app |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
689186423 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/145#issuecomment-689186423 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/145 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4OTE4NjQyMw== | simonw 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 } |
Bug when first record contains fewer columns than subsequent records 688659182 | |
689185393 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/pull/146#issuecomment-689185393 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/146 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4OTE4NTM5Mw== | simonw 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 } |
Handle case where subsequent records (after first batch) include extra columns 688668680 | |
689166404 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/155#issuecomment-689166404 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/155 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4OTE2NjQwNA== | simonw 9599 | 2020-09-08T22:20:03Z | 2020-09-08T22:20:03Z | OWNER | I'm going to update |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
rebuild-fts command and table.rebuild_fts() method 696045581 | |
689165985 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/153#issuecomment-689165985 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/153 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4OTE2NTk4NQ== | simonw 9599 | 2020-09-08T22:18:52Z | 2020-09-08T22:18:52Z | OWNER | I've reverted this change again, because it turns out using the |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
table.optimize() should delete junk rows from *_fts_docsize 695377804 | |
689163158 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/155#issuecomment-689163158 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/155 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4OTE2MzE1OA== | simonw 9599 | 2020-09-08T22:10:27Z | 2020-09-08T22:10:27Z | OWNER | For the command version:
This will rebuild all detected FTS tables. You can also specify one or more explicit tables:
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
rebuild-fts command and table.rebuild_fts() method 696045581 | |
688626037 | https://github.com/dogsheep/dogsheep-beta/issues/19#issuecomment-688626037 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/dogsheep-beta/issues/19 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4ODYyNjAzNw== | simonw 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 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 } |
Figure out incremental re-indexing 695556681 | |
688625430 | https://github.com/dogsheep/dogsheep-beta/issues/19#issuecomment-688625430 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/dogsheep-beta/issues/19 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4ODYyNTQzMA== | simonw 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 } |
Figure out incremental re-indexing 695556681 | |
688623097 | https://github.com/dogsheep/dogsheep-beta/issues/18#issuecomment-688623097 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/dogsheep-beta/issues/18 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4ODYyMzA5Nw== | simonw 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 } |
Deleted records stay in the search index 695553522 | |
688622995 | https://github.com/dogsheep/dogsheep-beta/issues/18#issuecomment-688622995 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/dogsheep-beta/issues/18 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4ODYyMjk5NQ== | simonw 9599 | 2020-09-08T05:15:21Z | 2020-09-08T05:15:21Z | MEMBER | Alternatively it could run as it does now but add a 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 } |
Deleted records stay in the search index 695553522 |
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 6