It's not only an issue with TransactionDataImpl. All the internal state in
a transaction is kept without ordering information because neo4j doesn't do
ordering guarantees in general. It would require a bigger change and could
introduce memory and performance overhead to do so. Why is the order there
important to you?
2011/12/8 tcolar tco...@colar.net
Hi,
We use the Neo4JCommitListener to synchronize some neo4j data back to a
database.
I have an issue when trying to deal with the delete events.
I delete nodes in a particular order in neo4j (it's a nested set, so
down-up
), but when getting the events in the commitListener the order is not
respected (random), this is because deletedNodes is not an ordered set.
private final CollectionNode deletedNodes = new HashSetNode();
I think it would make sense to have that ordered, like:
private final CollectionNode deletedNodes = new LinkedHashSetNode();
Otherwise I don't see a reliable way to resolve this kind of issues.
Note that the same issue probably applies to the other collections in there
as well.
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://neo4j-community-discussions.438527.n3.nabble.com/TransactionDataImpl-deletedNodes-not-an-ordered-set-tp3571499p3571499.html
Sent from the Neo4j Community Discussions mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
___
NOTICE: THIS MAILING LIST IS BEING SWITCHED TO GOOGLE GROUPS, please
register and consider posting at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/neo4j
Neo4j mailing list
User@lists.neo4j.org
https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
--
Mattias Persson, [matt...@neotechnology.com]
Hacker, Neo Technology
www.neotechnology.com
___
NOTICE: THIS MAILING LIST IS BEING SWITCHED TO GOOGLE GROUPS, please register
and consider posting at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/neo4j
Neo4j mailing list
User@lists.neo4j.org
https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
