+1 on some uniqueness indication. However, I am not sure how to handle
UNIQUENESS_NONE and the potential cycles that will arise ...
Cheers,
/peter neubauer
GTalk: neubauer.peter
Skype peter.neubauer
Phone +46 704 106975
LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/neubauer
Twitter http://twitter.com/peterneubauer
http://www.neo4j.org - NOSQL for the Enterprise.
http://startupbootcamp.org/ - Öresund - Innovation happens HERE.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Andres Taylor
andres.tay...@neotechnology.com wrote:
A recent thread prompted me to think about this again.
Today, Cypher guarantees that no two points in the matching pattern will
contain the same node or relationship. Given the pattern (a)--(b), in no
matched subgraph will a and b contain the same node.
The only exception to this is for variable length paths. Given the path p =
(a)-[*1..6]-(b)--c, the node that is in c *might* also be one of the
nodes between a and b.
I don't think there was an explicit decision to have it like this, and now
I questioning this behavior.
Does anyone have any opinions on the matter? Maybe the best solution is to
be able to specify which uniqueness to use?
WDYT?
Andrés
___
Neo4j mailing list
User@lists.neo4j.org
https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
___
Neo4j mailing list
User@lists.neo4j.org
https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
