issue_comments
6 rows where user = 96218
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: issue_url, issue, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 682182178 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/139#issuecomment-682182178 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/139 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4MjE4MjE3OA== | simonwiles 96218 | 2020-08-27T20:46:18Z | 2020-08-27T20:46:18Z | CONTRIBUTOR | > I tried changing the batch_size argument to the total number of records, but it seems only to effect the number of rows that are committed at a time, and has no influence on this problem. So the reason for this is that the `batch_size` for import is limited (of necessity) here: https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/blob/main/sqlite_utils/db.py#L1048 With regard to the issue of ignoring columns, however, I made a fork and hacked a temporary fix that looks like this: https://github.com/simonwiles/sqlite-utils/commit/3901f43c6a712a1a3efc340b5b8d8fd0cbe8ee63 It doesn't seem to affect performance enormously (but I've not tested it thoroughly), and it now does what I need (and would expect, tbh), but it now fails the test here: https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/blob/main/tests/test_create.py#L710-L716 The existence of this test suggests that `insert_all()` is behaving as intended, of course. It seems odd to me that this would be a desirable default behaviour (let alone the only behaviour), and its not very prominently flagged-up, either. @simonw is this something you'd be willing to look at a PR for? I assume you wouldn't want to change the default behaviour at this point, but perhaps an option could be provided, or at least a bit more of a warning in the docs. Are there oversights in the implementation that I've made? Would be grateful for your thoughts! Thanks! | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | insert_all(..., alter=True) should work for new columns introduced after the first 100 records 686978131 | |
| 682815377 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/139#issuecomment-682815377 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/139 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4MjgxNTM3Nw== | simonwiles 96218 | 2020-08-28T16:14:58Z | 2020-08-28T16:14:58Z | CONTRIBUTOR | Thanks! And yeah, I had updating the docs on my list too :) Will try to get to it this afternoon (budgeting time is fraught with uncertainty at the moment!). | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | insert_all(..., alter=True) should work for new columns introduced after the first 100 records 686978131 | |
| 683382252 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/145#issuecomment-683382252 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/145 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4MzM4MjI1Mg== | simonwiles 96218 | 2020-08-30T06:27:25Z | 2020-08-30T06:27:52Z | CONTRIBUTOR | Note: had to adjust the test above because trying to exhaust a `SQLITE_MAX_VARIABLE_NUMBER` of 250000 in 99 records requires 2526 columns, and trips the ` "Rows can have a maximum of {} columns".format(SQLITE_MAX_VARS)` check even before it trips the default `SQLITE_MAX_COLUMN` value (2000). | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Bug when first record contains fewer columns than subsequent records 688659182 | |
| 688479163 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/pull/146#issuecomment-688479163 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/146 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4ODQ3OTE2Mw== | simonwiles 96218 | 2020-09-07T19:10:33Z | 2020-09-07T19:11:57Z | CONTRIBUTOR | @simonw -- I've gone ahead updated the documentation to reflect the changes introduced in this PR. IMO it's ready to merge now. In writing the documentation changes, I begin to wonder about the value and role of `batch_size` at all, tbh. May I assume it was originally intended to prevent using the entire row set to determine columns and column types, and that this was a performance consideration? If so, this PR entirely undermines its purpose. I've been passing in excess of 500,000 rows at a time to `insert_all()` with these changes and although I'm sure the performance difference is measurable it's not really noticeable; given #145, I don't know that any performance advantages outweigh the problems doing it this way removes. What do you think about just dropping the argument and defaulting to the maximum `batch_size` permissible given `SQLITE_MAX_VARS`? Are there other reasons one might want to restrict `batch_size` that I've overlooked? I could open a new issue to discuss/implement this. Of course the documentation will need to change again too if/when something is done about #147. | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Handle case where subsequent records (after first batch) include extra columns 688668680 | |
| 688481317 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/pull/146#issuecomment-688481317 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/146 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4ODQ4MTMxNw== | simonwiles 96218 | 2020-09-07T19:18:55Z | 2020-09-07T19:18:55Z | CONTRIBUTOR | Just force-pushed to update d042f9c with more formatting changes to satisfy `black==20.8b1` and pass the GitHub Actions "Test" workflow. | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Handle case where subsequent records (after first batch) include extra columns 688668680 | |
| 688573964 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/pull/146#issuecomment-688573964 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/146 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY4ODU3Mzk2NA== | simonwiles 96218 | 2020-09-08T01:55:07Z | 2020-09-08T01:55:07Z | CONTRIBUTOR | Okay, I've rewritten this PR to preserve the batching behaviour but still fix #145, and rebased the branch to account for the `db.execute()` api change. It's not terribly sophisticated -- if it attempts to insert a batch which has too many variables, the exception is caught, the batch is split in two and each half is inserted separately, and then it carries on as before with the same `batch_size`. In the edge case where this gets triggered, subsequent batches will all be inserted in two groups too if they continue to have the same number of columns (which is presumably reasonably likely). Do you reckon this is acceptable when set against the awkwardness of recalculating the `batch_size` on the fly? | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Handle case where subsequent records (after first batch) include extra columns 688668680 |
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]);