Would it be possible, on the right hand side of the page for an individual gem, to show the "rank" of the gem. As
in, based on the total number of downloads, this gem is 83/63,407.

Would be nice, so I concur there.

We only have to be careful to not make the information too "cluttered". While I think it would be useful and maxime
probably does so too, and many others, we also have to consider users who may prefer less information. But
personally, yup - sounds useful. I guess the placement and size may be important too, e. g. what size (~font size,
box size, roughly) would you recommend for it, and where exactly should that be placed? If you have some spare
time, perhaps a small image file as example? That may help folks visualize the change - but as said, I think it is a
good idea.

I would put it on the right hand side close to where the number of downloads is included.

if size is an issue, it could be right under the total number of download, but in a smaller font

10,937,427 downloads
103 of 59,379

I was looking into this, but it seems I forgot to post my notes. Let me try to revive those from my psql history and my poor memory.

It should be possible to get overall position using following query.

SELECT position FROM (
  SELECT rubygem_id, row_number() OVER(ORDER BY count DESC) AS position
  FROM gem_downloads WHERE version_id = 0 AND rubygem_id <> 0
) AS q WHERE rubygem_id = 123;")

This results into query taking 150-250ms at staging. To make it faster, we can cache the inner query somehow (using Rails.cache or materialized view in PostgreSQL) since that's global for all pushed gems and refresh periodically in background job each hour or so.

As in, based on the total number of downloads, this gem is 83/63,407.

Btw. @maximecb I got confused by this. I wrote some queries and I have seen different numbers for chunky_png. It took me a while to realize those are just example numbers. 🤦 😅.

Btw. @maximecb I got confused by this. I wrote some queries and I have seen different numbers for chunky_png. It took me a while to realize those are just example numbers.

That's pretty funny 😆 How far was I off with my fictional numbers?

... Excited that you're working on this tho :D

Btw. @maximecb I got confused by this. I wrote some queries and I have seen different numbers for chunky_png. It took me a while to realize those are just example numbers.

That's pretty funny laughing How far was I off with my fictional numbers?

... Excited that you're working on this tho :D

It seems chunky_png is actually 220/190,170.