IMHO, "legacy" here means "the awkward, old way how to do indexing" from
the Cypher perspecitve, where you have to manually care about index
creation/updates etc.. I find the new 2.0 indexes are a big improvement,
and as there's a lot of demand for all the indexing features you listed
here, I doubt that Neo4j will take them away, but on the contrary
improve automatic indexing in a clever, consistent and convenient way.
And as it comes to the Java core API, I'm relatively sure that Neo
Technology does not underestimate the number and importance of
users/developers doing amazing things with Neo4j on the "close to the
metal" level. For example, a lot of Structr's functionality is based on
the "legacy" indexing, and if it would be removed from the core API
without an equivalent replacement, we'd really have a problem. And
probably fork Neo4j then. ;-)
Best
Axel
Am 19.06.2014 16:59, schrieb Javier de la Rosa:
Good question. It would be really nice to have access to the complete
legacy indexing API from Cypher, so the transition to 2.x is less
traumatic for big codebase as ours, which is still tied to oldskool
indices.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Kevin Cadieux <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hello,
We are currently in the process of planning our indexing strategy
for our new Neo4j database. To our understanding, the new schema
indexes that have appeared since 2.0 have limitations that do not
fulfill our needs. For example, they do not allow:
* Relationship indexing
* Full text indexing
* Numeric range queries
As is written in the Neo4j documentation, it is possible to use
Legacy Indexing for these things and that's what we plan to do.
However, the fact that there is the word "Legacy" in the name is
making us question the wisdom of that decision. We are worried
that Neo4j will no longer support this indexing system in the
future and that we will be facing difficulties when comes the time
to upgrade our database to the newer versions. What are Neo
Technology's future plans with regard to the Legacy Indexing
system, and would Neo Technology consider it a wise decision for a
new project to make use of Legacy Indexing?
Thanks for your advice,
Kevin Cadieux
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Javier de la Rosa
http://versae.es
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Axel Morgner
CEO Structr (c/o Morgner UG) · Hanauer Landstr. 291a · 60314 Frankfurt ·
Germany
Twitter: @amorgner <https://twitter.com/amorgner>
Phone: +49 151 40522060
Skype: axel.morgner
Structr <http://structr.org> - Award-Winning Open Source CMS and Web
Framework based on Neo4j
Structr Mailing List and Forum
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21forum/structr>
Graph Database Usergroup "graphdb-frankfurt"
<http://www.meetup.com/graphdb-frankfurt>
--
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/d/optout.
