+1 on some uniqueness indication. However, I am not sure how to handle UNIQUENESS_NONE and the potential cycles that will arise ...
Cheers, /peter neubauer GTalk: neubauer.peter Skype peter.neubauer Phone +46 704 106975 LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/neubauer Twitter http://twitter.com/peterneubauer http://www.neo4j.org - NOSQL for the Enterprise. http://startupbootcamp.org/ - Öresund - Innovation happens HERE. On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Andres Taylor <andres.tay...@neotechnology.com> wrote: > A recent thread prompted me to think about this again. > > Today, Cypher guarantees that no two points in the matching pattern will > contain the same node or relationship. Given the pattern (a)-->(b), in no > matched subgraph will a and b contain the same node. > The only exception to this is for variable length paths. Given the path p = > (a)-[*1..6]->(b)-->c, the node that is in c *might* also be one of the > nodes between a and b. > > I don't think there was an explicit decision to have it like this, and now > I questioning this behavior. > Does anyone have any opinions on the matter? Maybe the best solution is to > be able to specify which uniqueness to use? > > WDYT? > > Andrés > _______________________________________________ > Neo4j mailing list > User@lists.neo4j.org > https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user > _______________________________________________ Neo4j mailing list User@lists.neo4j.org https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
