github
id | node_id | number | title | user | state | locked | assignee | milestone | comments | created_at | updated_at | closed_at | author_association | pull_request | body | repo | type | active_lock_reason | performed_via_github_app | reactions | draft | state_reason |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
395236066 | MDU6SXNzdWUzOTUyMzYwNjY= | 393 | CSV export in "Advanced export" pane doesn't respect query | 1727065 | closed | 0 | 6 | 2019-01-02T12:39:41Z | 2021-06-17T18:14:24Z | 2019-01-03T02:44:10Z | NONE | It looks like there's an inconsistency when exporting to CSV via the the web interface. Say I'm looking at [songs released in 1989](https://fivethirtyeight.datasettes.com/fivethirtyeight-c300360/classic-rock%2Fclassic-rock-song-list?Release+Year__exact=1989) in the `classic-rock/classic-rock-song-list` table from the Five Thirty Eight data. The JSON and CSV export links at the top of the page both give me filtered data using `Release+Year__exact=1989` in the URL. In the `Advanced export` tab, though, the CSV option gives me the whole data set, while the JSON options preserve the query. It may be that this is intended behaviour related to the streaming CSV stuff [discussed here](https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/266), but if that's the case then I think it should be a little clearer. | 107914493 | issue | { "url": "https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/393/reactions", "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
completed | ||||||
573583971 | MDU6SXNzdWU1NzM1ODM5NzE= | 689 | "Templates considered" comment broken in >=0.35 | 35075 | closed | 0 | 6 | 2020-03-01T17:31:21Z | 2020-04-05T19:39:44Z | 2020-04-05T19:39:44Z | NONE | Noticed that the "Templates Considered" comment is missing in 0.37. Believe I traced it back to #664 as you can see it in https://v0-34.datasette.io/ but not https://v0-35.datasette.io/. Looking at the template context debug between the two you can see what is missing from 0.35 vs. 0.34: ```diff < "datasette_version": "0.34", < "app_css_hash": "ffa51a", < "select_templates": [ < "*index.html" < ], < "zip": "<class 'zip'>", < "body_scripts": [], < "extra_css_urls": "<generator object BaseView._asset_urls at 0x7f6529ac05f0>", < "extra_js_urls": "<generator object BaseView._asset_urls at 0x7f6529ac0660>", < "format_bytes": "<function format_bytes at 0x7f652a1588b0>", < "database_url": "<bound method BaseView.database_url of <datasette.views.index.IndexView object at 0x7f6529b03e50>>", < "database_color": "<bound method BaseView.database_color of <datasette.views.index.IndexView object at 0x7f6529b03e50>>" --- > "datasette_version": "0.35", > "database_url": "<bound method BaseView.database_url of <datasette.views.index.IndexView object at 0x7f6140dacd90>>", > "database_color": "<bound method BaseView.database_color of <datasette.views.index.IndexView object at 0x7f6140dacd90>>" ``` | 107914493 | issue | { "url": "https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/689/reactions", "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
completed | ||||||
512996469 | MDU6SXNzdWU1MTI5OTY0Njk= | 607 | Ways to improve fuzzy search speed on larger data sets? | 8431341 | closed | 0 | 6 | 2019-10-27T17:31:37Z | 2019-11-07T03:38:10Z | 2019-11-07T03:38:10Z | NONE | I have an sqlite table with 16 million rows in it. Having read @simonw article "[Fast Autocomplete Search for Your Website](https://24ways.org/2018/fast-autocomplete-search-for-your-website/)" I was curious to try datasette to see what kind of query performance I could get out of it. In truth I don't need to do full text search since all I would like to do is give my users a way to search for the names of investors such as "Warren Buffet", or "Tim Cook" (who's names are in a single column). On the first search, Datasette takes over 20 seconds to return all records associated with `elon musk`: > ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/8431341/67638889-a86e1100-f8b7-11e9-9f7e-a9d13a42e988.png) > ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/8431341/67638825-ed457800-f8b6-11e9-94d1-b44f1a40ee8c.png) If I rerun the same search, it then takes almost 9 seconds: > ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/8431341/67638908-e4a17180-f8b7-11e9-9d00-748c80ef1f21.png) That's far to slow to implement an autocomplete feature. I could reduce the latency by making a special table of only unique investor names, thereby reducing the search space to less than a million rows (then I'd need to implement a way to add only new investor names to the table as I received new data.. about 4,000 rows a day). If I did that, I'm still concerned the new table wouldn't be lean enough to lookup investor names quickly. Plus, even if I can implement the autocomplete feature, I would still finally have to lookup records for that investors which would take between 8 - 20 seconds. Are there any tricks for speeding this up? Here's my hardware: > ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/8431341/67638861-55945980-f8b7-11e9-96a8-ca76c7c68c5d.png) | 107914493 | issue | { "url": "https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/607/reactions", "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
completed |