I'm guessing you just want some indication that there's a path (or no path) between N1 and N2?
I guess a bit more context would help to determine what you're trying to do exactly - what's the use case? On Monday, July 14, 2014 1:01:13 AM UTC-4, Mars Agliullin wrote: > > Hello, group > > I have a use case for 'virtual' (i.e. created on the fly, not persistent > in DB) relationships. Say, we're looking for pairs of nodes (n1), (n2) in > DB, that are related somehow (e.g. traversable from n1 to n2). We're not > interested in intermediate nodes or relationships between n1 and n2. > Besides n1 and n2 (and their pairing) result set contains other > components; e.g.: > > match (n0)-[r]->(n1)-[*1..10]->(n2) > where ... > return n0, r, [n1, n2] > > If graph format is used for results (good for its brevity), we either get > the whole subgraph including components of all paths from n1 to n2, which > may be huge and is not needed, or lose pairing between n1 and n2. A better > alternative would be to return n1, n2 and a 'virtual' relationship from n1 > to n2: > > match (n0)-[r]->(n1)-[*1..10]->(n2) > where ... > return n0, r, n1, n2, relationship(n1, n2, "Some label", { name: "Some > name" }) > > , where relationship() is a proposed function, returning 'virtual' > relationships. > > Any ideas? > > -- 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 neo4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.