John,Please clarify this scenario. If one makes a complete set of calls starting from cursor -1 unto the end at one moment, and then another set of the same calls later is there any invariance? If so what?
>From the statements above I understand: - always 5000 followers are returned (if the user has more than 5000, and the last call will have less) - the order is the same: it's the time order that users followed this account And thus: - there is no correlation in the API between a particular cursor and a set of returned values (followers) Is that it? On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:12 PM, John Kalucki <jkalu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I described, in some detail, the reasons for cursors here: > > http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/msg/badfb7b6074aab10 > > If the details are uninteresting, the high-level summary is this: The > paged API was designed in a previous era. Paging is simply too > expensive and totally impractical to provide with the current > following counts. Also the QoS had deteriorated to the point where > some doubted that anyone was seriously using the methods. Paging is > going away and paging is not coming back. > > The cursored approach allows us to continue to provide access to the > social graph via the REST API. As a benefit, QoS has been dramatically > improved and data quality is now pretty close to perfect. > > If the implementation details and invariants described are confusing, > then stick to the well worn part of the path: Request the first block > with a cursor of -1. Keep requesting forward until you get a cursor of > 0. > > -John Kalucki > http://twitter.com/jkalucki > Services, Twitter Inc. > > On Oct 6, 11:06 am, Jesse Stay <jesses...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I said the same thing in the last thread about this - still no clue what > > Twitter is doing with cursors and how it is any different than the > previous > > paging methods. > > Jesse > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Thanks John. However, I will be the first to put up my hand and say > > > that I have no clue what you said. > > > > > Can someone please translate John's answer into easy to understand > > > language, with specific relation to the questions I asked? > > > > > Dewald > > > > > On Oct 5, 1:17 am, John Kalucki <jkalu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I haven't looked at all the parts of the system, so there's some > > > > chance that I'm missing something. > > > > > > The method returns the followers in the reverse chronological order > of > > > > edge creation. Cursor A will have the most recent 5,000 edges, by > > > > creation time, B the next most recent 5,000, etc. The last cursor > will > > > > have the oldest edges. > > > > > > Each cursor points to some arbitrary edge. If you go back and > retrieve > > > > cursor B, you should receive N edges created just before the edge- > > > > pointed-to-by-B was created. I don't recall if N is always 5000, > > > > generally 5000 or if it's at most 5000. This detail shouldn't matter, > > > > other than, on occasion, you'll make an extra API call. > > > > > > In any case, retrieving cursor B will never return edges created > after > > > > the edge-pointed-to-by-B was created. All edges returned by cursor B > > > > will be no-newer-than, and generally older than, than the > edge-pointed- > > > > to-by-B. > > > > > > So, all future sets returned by cursor B are always disjoint from the > > > > set originally returned by cursor A. In your example, if you > refetched > > > > both A and B, the result sets wouldn't be disjoint as there are no > > > > longer 5,000 edges between cursor A and cursor B. > > > > > > I think this, in part answers your question. ? > > > > > > -John Kaluckihttp://twitter.com/jkalucki > > > > Services, Twitter Inc. > > > > > > On Oct 4, 6:10 pm, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > For discussion purposes, let's assume I am cursoring through a very > > > > > volatile followers list of @veryvolatile. We have the following > > > > > cursors: > > > > > > > A = 5,000 > > > > > B = 5,000 > > > > > C = 5,000 > > > > > > > I retrieve Cursor A and process it. Next I retrieve Cursor B and > > > > > process it. Then I retrieve Cursor C and process it. > > > > > > > While I am processing Cursor C, 200 of the people who were in > Cursor A > > > > > unfollow @veryvolatile, and 400 of the people who were in Cursor B > > > > > unfollow @veryvolatile. > > > > > > > What do I get when I go back from C to B? Do I now get 4,600 ids in > > > > > the list? > > > > > > > Or, do I get 5,000 in B, which now includes a subset of 400 ids > that > > > > > were previously in Cursor A? > > > > > > > Dewald >