Support in what way, have two edges, one for each direction or what Jasper and Nick are suggesting?
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 5:35 PM John Gemignani <john.gemign...@bitnine.net> wrote: > I don't think having a default direction applied for a non-directed edge is > a good idea; there wouldn't be a way to tell these edges apart later on. > > I think it might be a better idea to just support non-directed edges. > > John > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 3:35 PM Jasper Blues <jas...@liberation-data.com> > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > The quirk behind that CYPHER comes from Neo4j’s property graph model: > > > > All edges have a direction > > When direction is not relevant it can be ignored. > > > > This works will for read queries, for merge it is slightly quirky, > however > > I believe the specification is reasonable: > > > > If we MERGE with an edge that does not specify a direction, it is because > > direction is irrelevant, just as in the read scenario > > Given this, the result is to intentionally assign a random direction > > > > I think the above behavior is OK. It would also be reasonable to pick a > > consistent direction, however this leads to potential compatibility > issues: > > > > Users might start depending on an ‘implied’ direction > > When porting to/from Neo4j (interoperability is a strength - being able > to > > attract users to the platform and have the users be confident they can > > migrate if ever they want aids adoption). > > > > So my 2c: Do what Neo4j does, and make it random, because the intention > is > > “direction doesn’t matter”. However choosing a direction would also be > ok. > > I don’t think rejecting the MERGE is great, because it differs from how > > other CYPHER graph DBs behave. > > > > > > > > > On Jan 25, 2022, at 7:06 AM, Josh Innis <josh.in...@bitnine.net> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > The openCypher specification for MERGE has an ambiguous specification > on > > > the subject of undirected relationships. > > > > > > Per the document on page 119 in the section titled "Merge on an > > undirected > > > relationship": > > > > > > MERGE can also be used with an undirected relationship. When it needs > to > > > create a new one, it will pick a direction. > > > > > > Query: > > > MATCH (charlie:Person {name: 'Charlie Sheen'}), (oliver:Person {name: > > > 'Oliver Stone'}) > > > MERGE (charlie)-[r:KNOWS]-(oliver) > > > RETURN r > > > > > > As 'Charlie Sheen' and 'Oliver Stone' do not know each other, this > MERGE > > > query will create a KNOWS relationship between them. The direction of > the > > > created relationship is arbitrary. > > > > > > We should probably clarify that. Having MERGE use undirected edges to > > find > > > paths is a potentially useful feature, but "The direction of the > created > > > relationship is arbitrary" is unclear and should be clarified. > > > > > > I believe there are two potential ways to solve this issue: > > > Option 1: Do not let MERGE use undirected edges. > > > Option 2: Have a default direction that AGE will use every time MERGE > > > creates an edge where direction is not specified. > > > > > > Personally, I lean towards proposal 2 with the default direction being > a > > > right directed edge. The other way limits functionality, and as long as > > the > > > decision we make is expressed well in the documentation, I don't > believe > > it > > > is too confusing. > > > > > > Please let us know what you think. > > > > >