There is no offset. The protocol buffer stores a start_key and a boolean denoting if this start key is inclusive or not. The performance of continuing the fetch from a cursor should be the same as the performance of the first entities you got from a query.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Stephen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Feb 8, 7:06 pm, "Ikai L (Google)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > The official docs are pending, but here's Nick Johnson to the rescue: > > > > http://blog.notdot.net/2010/02/New-features-in-1-3-1-prerelease-Cursors > > > What are the performance characteristics of cursors? > > The serialised cursor shows that it stores an offset. Does that mean > that if the offset is one million, one million rows will have to be > skipped before the next 10 are returned? This will be faster than > doing it in your app, but not as quick as the existing bookmark > techniques which use the primary key index. > > Or is the server-side stateful, like a typical SQL implementation of > cursors? In which case, are there any limits to the number of active > cursors? Or what if a cursor is resumed some time in the future; will > it work at all, or work slower? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google App Engine" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<google-appengine%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. > > -- Alkis -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
