github
html_url | issue_url | id | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at | author_association | body | reactions | issue | performed_via_github_app |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
https://github.com/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/40#issuecomment-606307019 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/40 | 606307019 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDYwNjMwNzAxOQ== | 9599 | 2020-03-30T23:34:27Z | 2020-03-30T23:34:27Z | MEMBER | The count properties available for a user are: * followers_count * friends_count * listed_count * favourites_count * statuses_count May as well track history for all of them? Should be pretty cheap to store. | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
590669793 | |
https://github.com/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/40#issuecomment-607019151 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/40 | 607019151 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDYwNzAxOTE1MQ== | 9599 | 2020-04-01T04:11:10Z | 2020-04-01T04:11:10Z | MEMBER | In testing this collects a LOT of data. I'm going to skip tracking favourites_count and statuses_count and just track followers, friends and listed instead. | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
590669793 | |
https://github.com/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/40#issuecomment-607011972 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/40 | 607011972 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDYwNzAxMTk3Mg== | 9599 | 2020-04-01T03:49:02Z | 2020-04-01T03:50:01Z | MEMBER | I want the datetime value to look like `2020-04-01T03:34:58+00:00` (the format returned by the Twitter API which I am storing in other tables at the moment). ``` >>> datetime.utcnow().isoformat().split('.')[0] + '+00:00' '2020-04-01T03:49:52+00:00' ``` | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
590669793 | |
https://github.com/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/40#issuecomment-606307376 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/40 | 606307376 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDYwNjMwNzM3Ng== | 9599 | 2020-03-30T23:35:40Z | 2020-03-30T23:39:15Z | MEMBER | I think five separate tables: * followers_count_history * friends_count_history * listed_count_history * favourites_count_history * statuses_count_history Each with the following structure: * datetime (ISO UTC) * user (ID, foreign key to users) * count (integer) I'm tempted to have a compound primary key here - user, datetime | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
590669793 | |
https://github.com/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/40#issuecomment-607011421 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/40 | 607011421 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDYwNzAxMTQyMQ== | 9599 | 2020-04-01T03:47:37Z | 2020-04-01T03:55:08Z | MEMBER | Actually a single table with a `type` integer ID referencing a `count_history_types` table would better match the way I implemented the `since_ids` table: https://github.com/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/blob/4b6c8d8c1cc6fefdb566ec8506157133f47c569a/twitter_to_sqlite/utils.py#L331-L341 In which case the compound primary key would be `type`, `user`, `datetime` | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
590669793 |