Mark, It's extremely important where you have two bots that reply to each others' tweets. With incorrectly sorted tweets, you get conversations that look completely unnatural.
On Apr 1, 1:39 pm, Mark McBride <mmcbr...@twitter.com> wrote: > Just out of curiosity, what applications are you building that require > sub-second sorting resolution for tweets? > > ---Mark > > http://twitter.com/mccv > > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Aki <yoru.fuku...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It actually makes sense to use tweet ID to sort tweets, because > > timestamp is not a valid source of information for accurate sorting. > > It is a very common case to have multiple tweets posted at the exact > > same second, and it is not possible to reproduce the correct ordering > > of tweets on the client side. This can be improved by having better > > precision for timestamp (maybe milliseconds), but it is still possible > > to get tweets posted at the exact same milliseconds (although it is > > very rare). > > > If Twitter really needs to change the tweet ID scheme, I think better > > solution for sorting is required to be provided through API. > > > On Mar 27, 7:41 am, Taylor Singletary <taylorsinglet...@twitter.com> > > wrote: > > > Hi Developers, > > > > It's no secret that Twitter is growing exponentially. The tweets keep > > coming > > > with ever increasing velocity, thanks in large part to your great > > > applications. > > > > Twitter has adapted to the increasing number of tweets in ways that have > > > affected you in the past: We moved from 32 bit unsigned integers to > > 64-bit > > > unsigned integers for status IDs some time ago. You all weathered that > > storm > > > with ease. The tweetapoclypse was averted, and the tweets kept flowing. > > > > Now we're reaching the scalability limit of our current tweet ID > > generation > > > scheme. Unlike the previous tweet ID migrations, the solution to the > > current > > > issue is significantly different. However, in most cases the new approach > > we > > > will take will not result in any noticeable differences to you the > > developer > > > or your users. > > > > We are planning to replace our current sequential tweet ID generation > > > routine with a simple, more scalable solution. IDs will still be 64-bit > > > unsigned integers. However, this new solution is no longer guaranteed to > > > generate sequential IDs. Instead IDs will be derived based on time: the > > > most significant bits being sourced from a timestamp and the least > > > significant bits will be effectively random. > > > > Please don't depend on the exact format of the ID. As our infrastructure > > > needs evolve, we might need to tweak the generation algorithm again. > > > > If you've been trying to divine meaning from status IDs aside from their > > > role as a primary key, you won't be able to anymore. Likewise for usage > > of > > > IDs in mathematical operations -- for instance, subtracting two status > > IDs > > > to determine the number of tweets in between will no longer be possible. > > > > For the majority of applications we think this scheme switch will be a > > > non-event. Before implementing these changes, we'd like to know if your > > > applications currently depend on the sequential nature of IDs. Do you > > depend > > > on the density of the tweet sequence being constant? Are you trying to > > > analyze the IDs as anything other than opaque, ordered identifiers? Aside > > > for guaranteed sequential tweet ID ordering, what APIs can we provide you > > to > > > accomplish your goals? > > > > Taylor Singletary > > > Developer Advocate, Twitterhttp://twitter.com/episod > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
