I suspected it was either a dashboard issue or perhaps an indexing problem
as we weren't missing any data. I've ruled out the indexes, so I guess we
could call that a bug in the admin UI. As Peter alluded to, we encountered
this after heavy churn where thousands of relationships were being rapidly
Hi Bobby,
I'm with Peter on this - it's much more likely to be Webadmin and caching than
the DB losing stuff.
Can you triple-check by (laboriously) doing something like this on a copy of
your database:
int count = 0;
for(Node n : myDatabase.getAllNodes()) {
Iterable
Hi Michael,
I do not share the type mapping code I just described, at least not yet. I'd
like to launch a product using these techniques first and maybe somewhere down
the line decide to make it open source, but for now I am keeping this work to
myself, to at least have some competitive edge.
Sorry meant Niels of course ;)
Sent from my iBrick4
Am 05.05.2011 um 22:35 schrieb Michael Hunger
:
> Nils that sounds interesting do you share the type mapping code for scala
> somewhere?
>
> Michael
>
> Sent from my iBrick4
>
>
> Am 05.05.2011 um 22:22 schrieb Niels Hoogeveen :
>
>>
>
Uncommitted?
-Original Message-
From: user-boun...@lists.neo4j.org [mailto:user-boun...@lists.neo4j.org] On
Behalf Of Bobby Norton
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 4:21 PM
To: user@lists.neo4j.org
Subject: [Neo4j] Relationships missing after restart?
Under what circumstances would I expect t
Nils that sounds interesting do you share the type mapping code for scala
somewhere?
Michael
Sent from my iBrick4
Am 05.05.2011 um 22:22 schrieb Niels Hoogeveen :
>
> I agree it can be valuable to assign a type to a node. In my own work I do
> that, but we may have very different needs with
Hi there,
could this also be an issue of IDs being reclaimed and the Dashboard not
reporting the actual number of relationships, but the number of relationship
IDs in use, which is greater when relationships have e.g. been deleted and
new ones inserted. Is there any concrete evidence of data missin
I solved the node typing problem using
http://wiki.neo4j.org/content/Design_Guide#Subreferences . This worked out
well for starting traversals over all nodes of a particular type. Many of my
traversal problems can be solved easily with a Pathfinder initialized with
two subreference nodes to get all
I agree it can be valuable to assign a type to a node. In my own work I do
that, but we may have very different needs with regards to typing. In the
application I have built, I use relationships to make nodes an instance of one
or more types, while node types can be subtype of one or more othe
Under what circumstances would I expect the number of relationships in the
server to change between restarts?
For example, on one occasion I stopped a server with 66,201 relationships
and on restart it only had 65,554 relationships. These numbers were reported
on the Neo4J Dashboard in the 1.3 GA
Relationship-Types are already stored separately and just referenced via an ID,
so renaming them should be something the Neo4j store should offer.
Cheers
Michael
Am 05.05.2011 um 19:46 schrieb Rick Bullotta:
> Example: Today I call them "cars", but tomorrow I simply want to call them
> "depre
Example: Today I call them "cars", but tomorrow I simply want to call them
"deprecatedTransporationVehicles". If I have used an integral "type-id", I can
make this change trivially at the display level. If I have used strings, I
cannot...
-Original Message-
From: user-boun...@lists.ne
Am 05.05.2011 19:19, schrieb Rick Bullotta:
> In general, I think it's a good idea to avoid strings as "types" for a whole
> host of reasons (performance, future renaming/refactoring, etc.).
Having type-ids for performance reasons instead of type-strings is okay,
but because of future renaming/r
Respectfully disagree. In many domains, it is valuable to know the "type" of
the domain object a node represents "in situ" with no knowledge whatsoever of
its place in the graph relative to other nodes.
-Original Message-
From: user-boun...@lists.neo4j.org [mailto:user-boun...@lists.ne
I think the basic confusion surrounding this issue stems from the term
RelationshipType. It is not a type, but just a key to the relationships value
store (resulting in nodes).
When you consider a node as a consisting of two maps, one from property keys to
property values and one from the tupl
In general, I think it's a good idea to avoid strings as "types" for a whole
host of reasons (performance, future renaming/refactoring, etc.). We use a
special type of enum with an int "code" assigned to each enum in the
constructor (never, EVER use the ordinal() method with enums unless you wa
A minor optimization idea? Would it be sensible to use the shortstring storage
optimization for the rel-types (an perhaps node-types at some point) as well?
So if it fits within the 64 bits of a long it can be stored as such?
A more rigorous thing would be to restrict types to those criteria tha
I would say that the same is true of a "type" on a node - it could be a
significant performance optimization, depending on how properties are loaded vs
the "node itself". If it saves a major step by not having to search around in
property "stuff", there's an immediate advantage. Also, I suspec
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your notes.
I think I figured out what I did wrong: I tried to remove nodes and
relationships during traversal, like this:
Iterator nodes = td.traverse( obj ).nodes().iterator();
for ( int order = 0; nodes.hasNext(); order++ )
{
Node n = nodes.next()
Hi Mikki,
Sure, you only have to inject the NeoServer with '@Context NeoServer server'
and then do something like this:
protected String getJson(Representation representation, UriInfo uriInfo)
throws Exception {
RepresentationFormatRepository repository = new
RepresentationFormatRepository(se
In the past I have spent time working on the Meta Model component, though I
ended up rolling my own component in Scala.
One of the issues when determining the type of either a property or a
relationship is the fact that only names can be used (property key, and
relationshipType.name) to do a l
Hi,
Anothor bug like feature I just found. :-)
Node#getRelationships() return an Iterablle, from which I can get an
Iterator. This Iterator (actually IntArrayIterator) however doesn't
implement the full Iterator interface as it throws an
UnsupportedOperationException() when remove() is called
2011/5/5 Aseem Kishore
> Yes, great points.
>
> I've worked a good deal with Microsoft's cloud NoSQL DB, Windows Azure
> Table
> Storage, and for what it's worth, I thought they solved this problem very
> elegantly. That API is entirely REST-based, and they use HTTP If-Match /
> If-Modified-Since
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Mattias Persson
wrote:
> it's on the roadmap for neo4j 1.4 and I'm suspecting it in quite early (i.e.
> pretty soon).
Cool.
I'm facing wired conflicts if I put Lucene 3.1.0 in the classpath (and
want to use Version.LUCENE_31).
Cheers
--
Massimo
http://meridio.b
This is how we use it, for performance, since some data will be much more
dense than other data, we don't want the index lookup of the sparse data to
be impacted by the dense data, we make separate indexes.
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:16 AM,
And,
of course different indexes can be backed by totally different Index
Providers. Lucene, Redis, Hadoop ...
Cheers,
/peter neubauer
GTalk: neubauer.peter
Skype peter.neubauer
Phone +46 704 106975
LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/neubauer
Twitter http://twitter.com/p
Another view of things would be to say that ideally there should be no first
class type on either relationships or nodes, since that is a domain specific
concept (as Neils says he wants two types, but Rick wants one, and some
object models type nodes by relating them to a separate node representing
Another reason to use multiple indices is the use of different Lucene
analyzers.
> Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 08:47:44 -0500
> From: peter.hunsber...@gmail.com
> To: user@lists.neo4j.org
> Subject: Re: [Neo4j] Examples of multiple indices in use?
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Mattias Persson
Exactly.
typing is different in different contexts, much like the notion of Qi4j
http://www.qi4j.org/qi4j/199.html on Mixins vs. plain Java single
inheritance.
In my view, a type is something inferred from either a node property, a
meta-structure or a complete subgraph, like for example polygon tr
The meta model component (though in need of some attention), already allows the
typing of a node. An important difference between the typing in the meta model
component and the suggestion made in this thread is the fact that a node
according to the meta model can have more than one type, while
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Mattias Persson
wrote:
> 2011/5/5 Aseem Kishore
>
> > Interesting. That's assuming a person and an organization can share the
> > same
> > name. Maybe an edge case in this example, but I can understand. Thanks.
> >
>
> Hmm, no not share the same name, but have the
Are you sure that you deleted all relations before you try to remove the node
itself? Because the exception tells that you didn't. Maybe you should step
through delete process to be sure.
Greetings
Chris
Am 05.05.2011 um 13:47 schrieb "Balazs E. Pataki" :
> Hi,
>
> I have a complex databa
The RelationshipType isn't a type. It is a navigational feature.
I've slapped this link around for a few years now, every time this question
has been brought up:
http://lists.neo4j.org/pipermail/user/2008-October/000848.html
The fact that RelationshipType is a navigational feature and not a type
Hi Dario,
I'm trying to achieve the same. Could you post an example showing how
did you get it working?
Thanks,
MikKi
On 2011-04-06 15:50, Dario Rexin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thank you very much. The server injection worked quiet well.
>
>
> Am 06.04.11 14:31 schrieb "Michael Hunger" unter
> :
>
>> I
Hi,
I have a complex database and I try to delete some parts of the graph
using traversal. When deleting, I always delete all relationhips of a
node, and then delete the node itself. At the end, however I get this
exception:
Caused by: javax.transaction.HeuristicRollbackException: Failed to
c
+1. We implement this in our own code, and it would be great to have natively.
- Reply message -
From: "Aseem Kishore"
Date: Thu, May 5, 2011 4:29 am
Subject: [Neo4j] First-class "type" property on relationships but not nodes;
why?
To: "Neo4j user discussions"
I've found it interesti
I totally agree agree with this ;)
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Aseem Kishore wrote:
> I've found it interesting that Neo4j has a mandatory "type" property on
> relationships, but not nodes. Just curious, what's the reasoning behind the
> design having this distinction?
>
> If you say "you n
2011/5/5 Aseem Kishore
> Interesting. That's assuming a person and an organization can share the
> same
> name. Maybe an edge case in this example, but I can understand. Thanks.
>
Hmm, no not share the same name, but have the "name" property in common...
would you really like to ask an index que
Subject: Re: [Neo4j] inlcuding neo4j as an embedded Graphdatabase to a
GWT project in eclipse
Rene,
How comfortable are you with GWT? I had a look at your project, your trying
to do the neo4j work client side, this can't be done. Anything java related
needs to be done server side through RP
Rene,
I think when using Neo4j with GWT, you need to keep in mind that Neo4j
should not be compiled into Javascript as a component. If you want
some col examples, check out the Vaading UI components (build on top
of and using GWT) and sample setups like
https://github.com/peholmst/Neo4jVaadinDemo/
Yes, great points.
I've worked a good deal with Microsoft's cloud NoSQL DB, Windows Azure Table
Storage, and for what it's worth, I thought they solved this problem very
elegantly. That API is entirely REST-based, and they use HTTP If-Match /
If-Modified-Since headers to achieve conditional reques
I've found it interesting that Neo4j has a mandatory "type" property on
relationships, but not nodes. Just curious, what's the reasoning behind the
design having this distinction?
If you say "you need to know what type of relationship these two nodes
have", I would reply, "don't you also need to k
Interesting. That's assuming a person and an organization can share the same
name. Maybe an edge case in this example, but I can understand. Thanks.
Aseem
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:58 AM, Mattias Persson
wrote:
> Let's say you have persons and organisations in your graph... they both
> have
> th
Assem,
I agree. The problem is not the database API IMHO, but the mismatching
semantics of HTTP REST and transactional DB APIs, and the balancing of
shoving over work to the database server via server side processing
scripting or plugins and client side operations via HTTP. Let's see if
we can come
Let's say you have persons and organisations in your graph... they both have
the "name" property. Now you could index both persons and organisations in
the same index with the "name" property, but then you'd get mixed results
back. Or you could invent some key convention, like "org_name" and
"perso
Hey, Tobias,
I just figure out what the problem was (java path), fixed it but forgot to
let the code as it was before my attempts to find out what it was. Now, it's
working.
Thanks anyway and I'll wait to see something new on this. It's a really nice
project. :D
Milena.
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:
Does anyone here actually use multiple node/relationship indices? If so, I'd
love to understand the use case. What do multiple indices get you that you
couldn't get with just one index?
Thanks,
Aseem
___
Neo4j mailing list
User@lists.neo4j.org
https://l
Thanks Peter. Looking forward to seeing what you guys come up with!
Dima, thanks for the tip. It would be nice to not to have to write a custom
plugin for what's arguably a pretty fundamental need from database APIs. =)
Aseem
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Peter Neubauer <
peter.neuba...@neotec
48 matches
Mail list logo
