-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 653
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
datasette inspect takes a very long time on large dbs #316
Comments
I should add that I'm using datasette version 0.22, Python 2.7.10 on Mac OS X. Happy to send more info if helpful. |
Wow, I've gone as high as 7GB but I've never tried it against 600GB.
As you spotted, most of the time is spent in those counts. I imagine you don't need those row counts in order for the rest of Datasette to function correctly (they are mainly used for display purposes - on the https://latest.datasette.io/fixtures index page for example). If your database changes infrequently, for the moment I recommend running If your database DOES change frequently then this workaround won't help you much. Let me know and I'll see how much work it would take to have those row counts be optional rather than required. |
Hi Simon, |
For #271 I've been contemplating having Datasette work against an on-disk database that gets modified without needing to restart the server. For that to work, I'll have to dramatically change the inspect() mechanism. It may be that inspect becomes an optional optimization in the future. |
This will be fixed by #419 |
Hi,
I want to expose data in a very large sqlite database (~600Gb) to the web. I have used datasette with success on smaller test databases with the same schema - it works very well (thanks!). However, using the full db, both
datasette inspect
anddatasette serve
seem to hang or pause for a very long time (tens of minutes) on startup. Is this expected behaviour?(I noticed that the output of
datasette inspect
includes row counts for each table. Simply counting the rows in this db will take a long time (tens of millions of rows across each of ~10 tables), so I wondered if this is the source of the problem.)Any help on a workaround would be appreciated.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: