issue_comments
8 rows where issue = 1560982210
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: user, author_association, created_at (date), updated_at (date)
| id ▼ | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at | author_association | body | reactions | issue | performed_via_github_app |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1407470429 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/2008#issuecomment-1407470429 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2008 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T5Etd | cldellow 193185 | 2023-01-28T19:34:29Z | 2023-01-28T19:34:29Z | CONTRIBUTOR | I don't know how/if you do automated tests for performance, so I haven't changed any of the tests. | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | array facet: don't materialize unnecessary columns 1560982210 | |
| 1407471459 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/2008#issuecomment-1407471459 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2008 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T5E9j | codecov[bot] 22429695 | 2023-01-28T19:40:18Z | 2023-01-29T04:55:39Z | NONE | # [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/simonw/datasette/pull/2008?src=pr&el=h1&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Simon+Willison) Report Base: **92.11**% // Head: **91.78**% // Decreases project coverage by **`-0.34%`** :warning: > Coverage data is based on head [(`f529a30`)](https://codecov.io/gh/simonw/datasette/pull/2008?src=pr&el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Simon+Willison) compared to base [(`e4ebef0`)](https://codecov.io/gh/simonw/datasette/commit/e4ebef082de90db4e1b8527abc0d582b7ae0bc9d?el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Simon+Willison). > Patch has no changes to coverable lines. <details><summary>Additional details and impacted files</summary> ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #2008 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 92.11% 91.78% -0.34% ========================================== Files 38 39 +1 Lines 5555 5599 +44 ========================================== + Hits 5117 5139 +22 - Misses 438 460 +22 ``` | [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/simonw/datasette/pull/2008?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Simon+Willison) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [datasette/facets.py](https://codecov.io/gh/simonw/datasette/pull/2008?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Simon+Willison#diff-ZGF0YXNldHRlL2ZhY2V0cy5weQ==) | `91.84% <ø> (ø)` | | | [datasette/views/row.py](https://codecov.io/gh/simonw/datasette/pull/2008?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Simon+Willison#diff-ZGF0YXNldHRlL3ZpZXdzL3Jvdy5weQ==) | `87.82% <0.00%> (ø)` | | | [datasette/view… | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | array facet: don't materialize unnecessary columns 1560982210 | |
| 1407558284 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/2008#issuecomment-1407558284 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2008 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T5aKM | cldellow 193185 | 2023-01-29T04:23:58Z | 2023-01-29T04:24:27Z | CONTRIBUTOR | Ack, this PR is broken. I see now that the `inner.*` is necessary for ensuring the correct count in the face of rows having duplicate values in views. That fixes the overcounting, but I think can undercount when the rows have the same data, eg a view like: ```sql SELECT '["bar"]' tags UNION ALL SELECT '["bar"]' ``` will produce a count of `{"bar": 1 }`, when it should be `{"bar": 2}`. In fact, this could apply in tables without primary keys, too. If `inner` came from a base table that had a primary key or a rowid, we could use those column(s) to solve that case. I guess a general solution would be to compute a window function so we have a distinct ID for each row. Will fiddle to see if I can get that working. | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | array facet: don't materialize unnecessary columns 1560982210 | |
| 1407561308 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/2008#issuecomment-1407561308 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2008 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T5a5c | cldellow 193185 | 2023-01-29T04:50:50Z | 2023-01-29T04:50:50Z | CONTRIBUTOR | I pushed a revised version which ends up being faster -- the example which currently takes 4 seconds now runs in 500ms. | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | array facet: don't materialize unnecessary columns 1560982210 | |
| 1407567753 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/2008#issuecomment-1407567753 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2008 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T5ceJ | simonw 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} | array facet: don't materialize unnecessary columns 1560982210 | |
| 1407568923 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/2008#issuecomment-1407568923 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2008 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T5cwb | simonw 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} | array facet: don't materialize unnecessary columns 1560982210 | |
| 1407716963 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/2008#issuecomment-1407716963 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2008 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T6A5j | cldellow 193185 | 2023-01-29T17:04:03Z | 2023-01-29T17:04:03Z | CONTRIBUTOR | Performance tests - I think most places don't have them as a formal gate enforced by CI. TypeScript and scalac seem to have tests that run to capture timings. The timings are included by a bot as a comment or build check, and also stored in a database so you can graph changes over time to spot regressions. Probably overkill for Datasette! Window functions - oh, good point. Looks like Ubuntu shipped JSON1 support as far back as sqlite 3.11. I'll let this PR linger until there's a way to run against different SQLite versions. For now, I'm shipping this with `datasette-ui-extras`, since I think it's OK for a plugin to enforce a higher minimum requirement. Tests - there actually did end up being test changes to capture the undercount bug of the current implementation, so the current implementation would fail against the new tests. Perhaps a non-window function version could be written that uses `random()` instead of `row_number() over ()` in order to get a unique key. It's technically not unique, but in practice, I imagine it'll work well. | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | array facet: don't materialize unnecessary columns 1560982210 | |
| 1407733793 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/2008#issuecomment-1407733793 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2008 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5T6FAh | simonw 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} | array facet: don't materialize unnecessary columns 1560982210 |
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]);