I haven't tested performance of UNION much. It's hard to do any sort of aggregation over the whole query which makes it a bit harder to use than WITH in some situations. Hope they add some syntax for that sort of aggregation at some point--seems like UNION could be parallelized more easily.
Wes On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Arijeet Mukherjee <[email protected]>wrote: > I've know that one of the ways to kind of join queries is by using WITH > and specifying which identifiers you wish to 'pass on' to the subsequent > part of the query. My question is, I've recently come across the UNION > statement. How different is it from WITH in terms of performance > particularly for queries where the same result can be achieved by using > either of the two? (Since my data set currently isn't too big, I didn't see > much of a difference when i ran it, but would it matter for large sets?) > > > On Friday, 24 January 2014 00:44:27 UTC+5:30, Mark Needham wrote: >> >> Wes and I just did a webinar about optimising cypher queries so we >> thought we could answer any further questions about it here. >> >> Also for those of you who couldn't make it, we haz slides - >> http://www.slideshare.net/markhneedham/optimizing-cypher >> >> Cheers >> Mark >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Neo4j" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Neo4j" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
