Update.

I have now discovered that this problem is occurring on other node types.

I have done some further diagnosis.

This query http://www.screencast.com/t/sYX04qGf4Pc returns a list of User 
nodes - so far so good.

However, when I MATCH for the node by id it finds a different node with the 
same id - http://www.screencast.com/t/8Ny2QuEVNB

So, I delete this folder containing the 
indexes: http://www.screencast.com/t/32GwWdcara

Then watch the indexes repopulate after restarting Neo4j 
service http://www.screencast.com/t/qQc1RzttHjez

When the indexes have repopulated: http://www.screencast.com/t/Zh4CvwvbZ5

I do the search again: http://www.screencast.com/t/gm8ZztMQTK now the MATCH 
returns two nodes with the same id despite the existence of a Constraint on 
that property.

js

On Monday, 3 November 2014 09:22:50 UTC, John Swain wrote:
>
> I was doing a large number of merge operations adding a new property to 
> around 5m nodes.
>
> During testing I noticed that the merge seemed to be creating spurious new 
> nodes breaking the Constraint condition. It turns out that the index was 
> out of sync and the merge was not finding the existing record therefore 
> creating a new one.
>
> I deleted the Lucene folder and restarted Neo4j - which fixed the problem.
>
> Here is a screenshot http://www.screencast.com/t/QkfzT1ye
>
> I would like to know how to avoid this occurring in future and if it is a 
> known problem. I have searched the group but not found any report if this 
> issue. This is a pretty serious bug for me as I need to do many of these 
> merge operations and need to be sure it is reliable.
>
> I am using Neo4j Enterprise 2.1.5 Personal Edition on a Mac running 
> Yosemite. Happy to provide any further information if required.
>
> regards,
> js
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to