Petar, very cool if this worked out. Maybe you could write up a testcase that verifies that the results are the same, and then put this as a fork to the graphalgo package? Sounds like a great addition if this works out?
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 Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Petar Dobrev <peter.dob...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi guys, > > I have a graph of about 2.5M nodes and 8M relationships and I am trying to > find all simple paths between two nodes with maximum depth of 8. > > The allSimplePaths graph algo works well for maximum depth of 5, but for 8 > it runs really long (I didn't even wait for it to finish). So I thought > it's just that the graph is too complicated and the search operation is > very expensive. > > On the other hand I noticed that shortestPath and pathsWithLength both work > fast. So I tried this experiment: > > - Run shortestPath and record the shortest length > - Iterate from the shortest length to max_depth > - Run pathsWithLength and append the results > - > > And it turns out to be working really well.. much, much faster than the > allSimplePaths solution, which I found quite baffling, since the latter > solution should be doing more work to accomplish the same task. > > Maybe it's just with my graph, but it's still weird. > > Best regards, > Petar > _______________________________________________ > 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
