issue_comments
17 rows where "created_at" is on date 2022-01-08 and "updated_at" is on date 2022-01-08 sorted by updated_at descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: issue_url, created_at (date)
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| IC_kwDOCGYnMM48F1-y | fgregg 536941 | 2022-01-08T22:24:19Z | 2022-01-08T22:24:19Z | CONTRIBUTOR | the out-of-date scenario you describe could be addressed by automatically adding an analyze to the insert or convert commands if they implicate an index |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 | |
1008158616 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/366#issuecomment-1008158616 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/366 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM48F0eY | simonw 9599 | 2022-01-08T21:35:32Z | 2022-01-08T21:35:32Z | OWNER | Built a prototype in a branch, see #367. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Python library methods for calling ANALYZE 1096563265 | |
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 | |
1008157998 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1587#issuecomment-1008157998 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1587 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c48F0Uu | simonw 9599 | 2022-01-08T21:29:54Z | 2022-01-08T21:29:54Z | OWNER | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Add `sqlite_stat1`(-4) tables to hidden table list 1097040427 | ||
1008157908 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1587#issuecomment-1008157908 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1587 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c48F0TU | simonw 9599 | 2022-01-08T21:29:06Z | 2022-01-08T21:29:06Z | OWNER | Depending on the SQLite version (and compile options) that ran
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Add `sqlite_stat1`(-4) tables to hidden table list 1097040427 | |
1008157132 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/366#issuecomment-1008157132 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/366 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM48F0HM | simonw 9599 | 2022-01-08T21:23:08Z | 2022-01-08T21:25:05Z | OWNER | Running This should be added to the default list of hidden tables in Datasette. It looks something like this: | tbl | idx | stat | |---------------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------| | _counts | sqlite_autoindex__counts_1 | 5 1 | | global-power-plants_fts_config | global-power-plants_fts_config | 1 1 | | global-power-plants_fts_docsize | | 33643 | | global-power-plants_fts_idx | global-power-plants_fts_idx | 199 40 1 | | global-power-plants_fts_data | | 136 | | global-power-plants | "global-power-plants_owner" | 33643 4 | | global-power-plants | "global-power-plants_country_long" | 33643 202 |
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Python library methods for calling ANALYZE 1096563265 | |
1008155916 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/364#issuecomment-1008155916 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/364 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM48Fz0M | simonw 9599 | 2022-01-08T21:16:46Z | 2022-01-08T21:16:46Z | OWNER | No, |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
`--batch-size 1` doesn't seem to commit for every item 1095570074 | |
1008154873 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/364#issuecomment-1008154873 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/364 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM48Fzj5 | simonw 9599 | 2022-01-08T21:11:55Z | 2022-01-08T21:11:55Z | OWNER | I'm suspicious that the In [11]: [list(d) for d in list(chunks('abcdefghi', 5))] Out[11]: [['a'], ['b'], ['c'], ['d'], ['e'], ['f'], ['g'], ['h'], ['i']] In [12]: [list(d) for d in list(chunks('abcdefghi', 3))] Out[12]: [['a'], ['b'], ['c'], ['d'], ['e'], ['f'], ['g'], ['h'], ['i']] ``` |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
`--batch-size 1` doesn't seem to commit for every item 1095570074 | |
1008153586 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/364#issuecomment-1008153586 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/364 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM48FzPy | simonw 9599 | 2022-01-08T21:06:15Z | 2022-01-08T21:06:15Z | OWNER | I added a print statement after |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
`--batch-size 1` doesn't seem to commit for every item 1095570074 | |
1008151884 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/364#issuecomment-1008151884 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/364 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM48Fy1M | simonw 9599 | 2022-01-08T20:59:21Z | 2022-01-08T20:59:21Z | OWNER | (That Heroku example doesn't record the timestamp, which limits its usefulness) |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
`--batch-size 1` doesn't seem to commit for every item 1095570074 | |
1008143248 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/364#issuecomment-1008143248 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/364 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM48FwuQ | simonw 9599 | 2022-01-08T20:34:12Z | 2022-01-08T20:34:12Z | OWNER | Built that tool: https://github.com/simonw/stream-delay and https://pypi.org/project/stream-delay/ |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
`--batch-size 1` doesn't seem to commit for every item 1095570074 | |
1008129841 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/364#issuecomment-1008129841 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/364 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM48Ftcx | simonw 9599 | 2022-01-08T20:04:42Z | 2022-01-08T20:04:42Z | OWNER | It would be easier to test this if I had a utility for streaming out a file one line at a time. A few recipes for this in https://superuser.com/questions/526242/cat-file-to-terminal-at-particular-speed-of-lines-per-second - I'm going to build a quick |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
`--batch-size 1` doesn't seem to commit for every item 1095570074 | |
1007844190 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/1574#issuecomment-1007844190 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1574 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c48Ente | fgregg 536941 | 2022-01-08T00:42:12Z | 2022-01-08T00:42:12Z | CONTRIBUTOR | is there a reason to not always use the slim option? |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
introduce new option for datasette package to use a slim base image 1084193403 |
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 5