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/simonw/datasette/pull/2008#issuecomment-1407733793 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2008 | 1407733793 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T6FAh | 9599 | 2023-01-29T18:17:40Z | 2023-01-29T18:17:40Z | OWNER | > We don't have any performance tests yet - would be a useful thing to add, I've not built anything like that before (at least not in CI, I've always done as-hoc performance testing using something like Locust) so I don't have a great feel for how it could work. Had an interesting conversation about this just now: https://fedi.simonwillison.net/@simon/109773800944614366 There's a risk that different runs will return different results due to the shared resource nature of GitHub Actions runners, but a good fix for that is to run comparative tests where you run the benchmark against e.g. both `main` and the incoming PR branch and report back on any differences. | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
1560982210 | |
https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/2008#issuecomment-1407568923 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2008 | 1407568923 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T5cwb | 9599 | 2023-01-29T05:47:36Z | 2023-01-29T05:47:36Z | OWNER | > I don't know how/if you do automated tests for performance, so I haven't changed any of the tests. We don't have any performance tests yet - would be a useful thing to add, I've not built anything like that before (at least not in CI, I've always done as-hoc performance testing using something like Locust) so I don't have a great feel for how it could work. I see not having to change the tests at all for this change as a really positive sign. If you find any behaviour differences between this and the previous that's a sign we should add a mother test or two specifying the behaviour we want. | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
1560982210 | |
https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/2008#issuecomment-1407567753 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2008 | 1407567753 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T5ceJ | 9599 | 2023-01-29T05:39:54Z | 2023-01-29T05:40:34Z | OWNER | I absolutely _love_ this performance boost - really nice find. One concern: this will be the first time Datasette ships a core feature that uses window functions. Window functions were added to SQLite in [version 3.25.0](https://www.sqlite.org/releaselog/3_25_0.html) on 2018-09-15 - which means it's still very common for Datasette to run on versions that don't yet support them. So I see two options: - Detect window function support and switch between the old implementation and this better, new one - Detect window functions and disable the facet-by-JSON feature entirely if they are missing I like the first option a bit better. This also leads to a tricky CI challenge: Datasette needs to be able to run its test suite against more than one SQLite version to confidently test this feature going forward. I don't yet have a good GitHub Actions recipe for this, but I _really_ need one - for `sqlite-utils` too. Might be able to use this trick for that: https://til.simonwillison.net/sqlite/ld-preload | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
1560982210 |