Keith, I have to admit that I didn't really follow this general body of work closely, which include this pull request, the earlier one from Michael Pollmeier, the JIRA and I think some discussion somewhere on one of the mailing lists. As best I have gathered from what I did follow, I feel like the focus of this work so far was mostly related to "can someone get it to actually work", but not a lot about other aspects like testing, api, release branch to apply it to, etc. Is that a fair depiction of how this work has developed so far? if so, let's use this thread to make sure we're all on the same page as to how this change will get in on all those sorts of issues.
btw, thanks to you and michael for sticking at this to come to something that seems to work. looking forward to the continued discussion on this thread. On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Michael Pollmeier < mich...@michaelpollmeier.com> wrote: > Unsurprisingly I'm also +1 for defaulting to DFS in OLTP. My feeling is > that most users currently expect it to be DFS since that's what the docs > say. > > And yes, it's easy to verify the default in the test suite, once we > agreed on what the default should be. > > Cheers > Michael > > On 17/04/18 04:40, pieter gmail wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have not properly followed the previous thread. However I thought is > > going to be a way to set the default behavior as apposed to needing to > > use barrier() > > Is this the case or not? > > > > For Sqlg at least it is possible to optimize BFS much more effectively > > than DFS so it will be nice to have a way to set the strategy rather > > than having to manually inject barriers. > > > > Is the test suite going to enforce the BFS vs DFS? > > > > Thanks > > Pieter > > > > On 16/04/2018 16:56, Daniel Kuppitz wrote: > >> +1 for DFS. If the query relies on BFS, you can always do > >> .repeat(....barrier())... > >> > >> ^ This holds true as long as there's no significant difference in the > >> cpu+memory consumption and overall performance of the two approaches. > BFS > >> has its advantages when it comes to bulking; an arbitrary number of > >> traversers on the same element is processed at the same pace as a single > >> traverser. I don't think we can benefit from bulking in DFS. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Daniel > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:44 AM, Keith Lohnes <lohn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> As part of #838 <https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/838> there’s > >>> some > >>> discussion around whether or not to make DFS the default for the repeat > >>> step. On the one hand, everything else in OLTP is depth first. On the > >>> other > >>> hand, there’s likely existing traversals that depend on the breadth > >>> first > >>> nature of repeat. My general preference is to make DFS optional at > >>> first, > >>> and at some later date, change the default and have that be a separate > >>> change from implementing DFS for repeat > >>> > >>> > > > > > >