> newbies may find it helpful to start with something they already know. One problem with this is that it could invoke a tendency to try to map relational concepts onto a graph db. The two types of database are fundamentally different at the lowest level and if one starts off by thinking "where do I put my 'tables'?" they are only heading down the wrong path. I mentioned a while back that I felt designing a graph database is more akin to OO design that to relational design. Maybe we should stop using the word "database"?? :-P * * *Nigel Small* Phone: +44 7814 638 246 Blog: http://nigelsmall.name/ GTalk: [email protected] MSN: [email protected] Skype: technige Twitter: @technige <https://twitter.com/#!/technige> LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/nigelsmall
On 5 November 2011 14:03, Axel Morgner <[email protected]> wrote: > People already familiar with graphs seem to love the original Cypher > syntax while newbies may find it helpful to start with something they > already know. > > What about letting both coexist peacefully? > > Axel > > > Am 05.11.2011 14:29, schrieb Andres Taylor: > > On Nov 5, 2011 1:51 PM, "Jim Webber"<[email protected]> wrote: > >> I really don't want Cypher to pander to SQL. Cypher is about graph > > matching and should be awesome at it > > > > PQL isn't any different in this aspect. Mattias' ascii-art is still the > way > > to describe your pattern. Cypher is already very like SQL in many ways - > > PQL is a way to acknowledge these similarities and turn them into a > selling > > point instead. > > > > Andrés > > _______________________________________________ > > Neo4j mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user > > > _______________________________________________ > Neo4j mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user > _______________________________________________ Neo4j mailing list [email protected] https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
