issue_comments
6 rows where "created_at" is on date 2022-01-08, issue = 1096558279 and "updated_at" is on date 2022-01-08 sorted by updated_at descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: created_at (date), updated_at (date)
issue 1
- create-index should run analyze after creating index · 6 ✖
id | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at ▲ | author_association | body | reactions | issue | performed_via_github_app |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1008166084 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/365#issuecomment-1008166084 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/365 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM48F2TE | fgregg 536941 | 2022-01-08T22:32:47Z | 2022-01-08T22:32:47Z | CONTRIBUTOR | or using “ pragma optimize” |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
create-index should run analyze after creating index 1096558279 | |
1008164786 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/365#issuecomment-1008164786 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/365 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM48F1-y | fgregg 536941 | 2022-01-08T22:24:19Z | 2022-01-08T22:24:19Z | CONTRIBUTOR | the out-of-date scenario you describe could be addressed by automatically adding an analyze to the insert or convert commands if they implicate an index |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
create-index should run analyze after creating index 1096558279 | |
1008164116 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/365#issuecomment-1008164116 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/365 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM48F10U | fgregg 536941 | 2022-01-08T22:18:57Z | 2022-01-08T22:18:57Z | CONTRIBUTOR | the table with the query ran so bad was about 50k. i think the scenario should not be worse than no stats. i also did not know that sqlite was so different from postgres and needed an explicit analyze call. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
create-index should run analyze after creating index 1096558279 | |
1008163050 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/365#issuecomment-1008163050 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/365 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM48F1jq | simonw 9599 | 2022-01-08T22:10:51Z | 2022-01-08T22:10:51Z | OWNER | Is there a downside to having a Imagine the following sequence of events:
The user now has a database file with several million records and a statistics table that is wildly out of date, having been populated when they only had a few. Will this result in surprisingly bad query performance compared to it that statistics table did not exist at all? If so, I lean much harder towards |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
create-index should run analyze after creating index 1096558279 | |
1008161965 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/365#issuecomment-1008161965 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/365 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM48F1St | fgregg 536941 | 2022-01-08T22:02:56Z | 2022-01-08T22:02:56Z | CONTRIBUTOR | for options 2 and 3, i would worry about discoverablity. in other db’s it is not necessary to explicitly call analyze for most indices. ie for postgres
i suppose i would propose raising a warning if the stats table is created that explains what is going on and informs users about a —no-analyze argument. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
create-index should run analyze after creating index 1096558279 | |
1008158357 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/365#issuecomment-1008158357 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/365 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM48F0aV | simonw 9599 | 2022-01-08T21:33:07Z | 2022-01-08T21:33:07Z | OWNER | The one thing that worries me a little bit about doing this by default is that it adds a surprising new table to the database - it may be confusing to users if they run Options here are:
I'm currently leading towards that third option - @fgregg any thoughts? |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
create-index should run analyze after creating index 1096558279 |
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]);
user 2