issues

Table actions

1 row where state = "open" and user = 96218 sorted by updated_at descending

✎ View and edit SQL

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

Suggested facets: created_at (date), updated_at (date)

type 1

state 1

  • open · 1 ✖

repo 1

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
688670158 MDU6SXNzdWU2ODg2NzAxNTg= 147 SQLITE_MAX_VARS maybe hard-coded too low simonwiles 96218 open 0     7 2020-08-30T07:26:45Z 2021-02-15T21:27:55Z   CONTRIBUTOR  

I came across this while about to open an issue and PR against the documentation for batch_size, which is a bit incomplete.

As mentioned in #145, while:

SQLITE_MAX_VARIABLE_NUMBER ... defaults to 999 for SQLite versions prior to 3.32.0 (2020-05-22) or 32766 for SQLite versions after 3.32.0.

it is common that it is increased at compile time. Debian-based systems, for example, seem to ship with a version of sqlite compiled with SQLITE_MAX_VARIABLE_NUMBER set to 250,000, and I believe this is the case for homebrew installations too.

In working to understand what batch_size was actually doing and why, I realized that by setting SQLITE_MAX_VARS in db.py to match the value my sqlite was compiled with (I'm on Debian), I was able to decrease the time to insert_all() my test data set (~128k records across 7 tables) from ~26.5s to ~3.5s. Given that this about .05% of my total dataset, this is time I am keen to save...

Unfortunately, it seems that sqlite3 in the python standard library doesn't expose the get_limit() C API (even though pysqlite used to), so it's hard to know what value sqlite has been compiled with (note that this could mean, I suppose, that it's less than 999, and even hardcoding SQLITE_MAX_VARS to the conservative default might not be adequate. It can also be lowered -- but not raised -- at runtime). The best I could come up with is echo "" | sqlite3 -cmd ".limits variable_number" (only available in sqlite >= 2015-05-07 (3.8.10)).

Obviously this couldn't be relied upon in sqlite_utils, but I wonder what your opinion would be about exposing SQLITE_MAX_VARS as a user-configurable parameter (with suitable "here be dragons" warnings)? I'm going to go ahead and monkey-patch it for my purposes in any event, but it seems like it might be worth considering.

 sqlite-utils 140912432 issue     
{
    "url": "https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/147/reactions",
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
    

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object

CSV options: 

CREATE TABLE [issues] (
   [id] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
   [node_id] TEXT,
   [number] INTEGER,
   [title] TEXT,
   [user] INTEGER REFERENCES [users]([id]),
   [state] TEXT,
   [locked] INTEGER,
   [assignee] INTEGER REFERENCES [users]([id]),
   [milestone] INTEGER REFERENCES [milestones]([id]),
   [comments] INTEGER,
   [created_at] TEXT,
   [updated_at] TEXT,
   [closed_at] TEXT,
   [author_association] TEXT,
   [pull_request] TEXT,
   [body] TEXT,
   [repo] INTEGER REFERENCES [repos]([id]),
   [type] TEXT
, [active_lock_reason] TEXT, [performed_via_github_app] TEXT, [reactions] TEXT, [draft] INTEGER, [state_reason] TEXT);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issues_repo]
                ON [issues] ([repo]);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issues_milestone]
                ON [issues] ([milestone]);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issues_assignee]
                ON [issues] ([assignee]);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issues_user]
                ON [issues] ([user]);