-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
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
Updated questions and golden queries to prevent accept multiple correct answers and reduce ambiguity #37
Merged
Merged
Updated questions and golden queries to prevent accept multiple correct answers and reduce ambiguity #37
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ | ||
### Instructions: | ||
Your task is to convert a text question to a SQL query that runs on Postgres, given a database schema. | ||
|
||
### Input: | ||
Generate a SQL query that answers the question `{user_question}`. | ||
|
||
This query will run on a database whose schema is represented in this string: | ||
{table_metadata_string} | ||
|
||
### Response: | ||
Given the database schema, here is the SQL query that answers `{user_question}`: | ||
```sql |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
if we want the airports with the shortest minimum_connect_time, then we would need a subquery that gets the shortest minimum_connect_time, and then finds the airports which have that particular value right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, I read it as give me the connect time in ascending order. I think the current one is fine?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just texted a couple of folks to get more opinions and it seems like
give me the connect time in ascending order
is the consensus understanding of this. Sticking with this for now, but we can change later :)This was a very instructive lessons in phrasing, though. Context understanding is so non-trivial, and is one of the things our upcoming instruction-fine-tuned models will eventually get better at
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for explaining - agreed about the ascending order. I was focusing more on the 'shortest' bit, and it seemed to imply that we only want the one with the smallest value. Do you think it'd be ok if we remove the word 'shortest' here?