last_updated_ux field on person
D
Defeated Amphibian
It would be extremely helpful to have a last_updated_ux field per person so that we can filter out the records that actually changed when the dataset_version changes. As it currently stands, we would have to recalculate with the whole dataset every time the dataset_version changes instead of only with the records that changed.
Kade Beem
Kade Beem
Hi Distinguished Weasel. What you're looking to accomplish might already be in one of these existing feature requests:
https://feedback.peopledatalabs.com/feature-requests/p/lastupdatedux-field-on-person
or
https://feedback.peopledatalabs.com/feature-requests/p/provide-a-monthly-list-of-profiles-by-id-that-have-updated-since-the-previous-mo
If not, can you please describe the business need for this feature request?
B
Ben Eisenberg
open
B
Ben Eisenberg
Hey Charlie,
Let me know if I'm misinterpreting your ask, but I believe we're actually working on this as a feature for our Person Retrieve API to be released as part of our v18 release: https://docs.peopledatalabs.com/docs/person-retrieve-api
Our ideal customer workflow would be:
1) The first time you need to match a PDL profile or pull down a list of records you use enrichment // search
2) You then use person retrieve (which is metered against your enrichment credits) to just continue pulling down a PDL ID whenever you need it. Once we've made the improvement, you'd only be charged if the record was updated since the last time you pulled it from PDL.
D
Defeated Amphibian
Ben Eisenberg: Hi Ben, I think we would still require there to be an identifier on the response that indicates the last time the record was updated like last_updated_ux. It's good that we wouldn't be metered for a response that has not changed, but we need something on our end to be able to make that determination as well.
B
Ben Eisenberg
Defeated Amphibian: Gotcha -- and you would want this across the record (vs what we have right now for Job // Location). Thanks for clarifying!
D
Defeated Amphibian
Ben Eisenberg: Exactly! Thanks for getting back to us so soon =)