Done.
https://github.com/neo4j/gremlin-plugin/commit/d19a16b596ee00f89bf18a2f722d3735b229d290
Thanks for pointing this out!
Cheers,
/peter neubauer
GTalk: neubauer.peter
Skype peter.neubauer
Phone +46 704 106975
LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/neubauer
Twitter http:
Ahh,
Will then change the docs to reflect this.
On Nov 14, 2011 5:35 PM, "Marko Rodriguez" wrote:
> Hey Kevin,
>
> > g.v(293).in.drop(5).take(5)
> >
> > and
> >
> > g.v(293).in[5..9]
> >
> > (Both return the same, correct result set)
> > I will be doing some performance tests today on the two, bu
Hey Kevin,
> g.v(293).in.drop(5).take(5)
>
> and
>
> g.v(293).in[5..9]
>
> (Both return the same, correct result set)
> I will be doing some performance tests today on the two, but last week when
> I tried them both on fairly heavy queries, the second method seemed faster
> (I only say "seemed"
Kevin,
intuitively your conclusion sounds sound right. The in()[..] is
probably collecting into a Groovy array, and drop().take() are two
more pipes doing stuff, which is probably more expensive than a simple
array oparation. OTOH, I think the pipes are lazy, so you are not
running out of memory wi
hi folks
I'm implementing paging in a gremlin query - Can anyone tell me the
difference(s) between the following two techniques:
g.v(293).in.drop(5).take(5)
and
g.v(293).in[5..9]
(Both return the same, correct result set)
I will be doing some performance tests today on the two, but last week w
5 matches
Mail list logo
