I definitely agree that limiting or paging a set of results is probably not very useful without some sort of sorting. The (only) benefit of pushing sorting to the client is that the client might be able to filter the result further before sorting it. Since sorting is generally the most expensive operation it should be done as late as possible. However the idea of semi-sorting, to get only one page of sorted results at each request, that was mentioned in some thread yesterday sounds quite compelling.
I agree that an equivalent of LIMIT, OFFSET and ORDER BY is a good target. As to indexing: the structure of the graph IS the index to a large extent. This means that a well designed graph would often not need paging if the traversal is done right. There are however some cases where this is hard to accomplish and we need to work on supporting those cases better. Remember that a Graph Database is NOT a Relational Database. A lot of the ideas people have about databases are based on their knowledge of Relational Databases. I understand that it can be hard, but if that baggage could be left at the door it would make things a lot easier. Nobody is saying that Relational Databases are dead (except for some publicity stunts) far from it! What we (and a lot of other people) are saying is that the age of "one database to rule them all" is over. Different problems are best solved with different kinds of databases, RDBMSes are great at some, K/V stores some, and Graph Databases are great for some. Then there are some problems that are best solved with a combination of two or more (kinds of) databases, where each database brings its own strengths to the table, and is used only for the things it is good at. That's enough deviation from the topic, my conclusions remain the same as they were before this discussion started, I will state them in as few words as possible and in bullet point form to convey them as clearly as I can: * The REST API will probably need result set limiting or pagination. * Limiting and pagination will require (server side) sorting * Sorting can be better implemented if it's implemented in the core of the traversal framework * Limiting / Pagination can be deferred for a while until we know what it needs to look like (from looking at actual uses) * (Server side) Sorting can be deferred until we need it for limiting / pagination Peace, Tobias On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Michael Ludwig <[email protected]> wrote: > Tobias Ivarsson schrieb am 08.04.2010 um 18:23:27 (+0200) > [Re: [Neo] Traversers in the REST API]: > > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Alastair James <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > when we start talking about returning 1000s of nodes in JSON over > > > HTTP just to get the first 10 this is clearly sub-optimal (as I > > > build websites this is a very common use case). So, as you say, > > > sorting and limiting can wait, but I suspect the HTTP API would > > > benefit from offering it. Limiting need not require changes to the > > > core API, it could be implemented as a second stage in the HTTP API > > > code prior to output encoding. > > > > For paging / limiting: yes, you are absolutely right, this would not > > effect the core API at all, only the REST API. Limiting/paging is > > something we would probably add to the REST API before sorting. > > Limiting and paging usually go hand in hand with sorting, in my > experience. Why would anyone want to page through an unsorted > collection? > > > Sorting might be a similar case, but I still think the client would be > > better fitted to do sorting well. > > The server has indexes to support the sorting. (If it doesn't, it has a > problem anyway.) What does the client have to support sorting? So how > would it be better fitted to do sorting well? > > > But once paging / limiting is added it would be quite natural / useful > > to add sorting as well. What I want to avoid is keeping state on the > > server while waiting for the client to request the next page. > > If you ensure a binary tree index is used to do the sorting, you should > be fine. > > -- > Michael Ludwig > _______________________________________________ > Neo mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user > -- Tobias Ivarsson <[email protected]> Hacker, Neo Technology www.neotechnology.com Cellphone: +46 706 534857 _______________________________________________ Neo mailing list [email protected] https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
