Martin, would you be so kind as to test the current neo4j-1.6 snapshot with your query?
We did some changes in cypher and would like to see how that affects your query. Thanks a lot Michael Am 30.11.2011 um 18:34 schrieb Martin Junghanns: > @Tero @Krzysztof > thx for your fast replies. > > @Krzysztof > for me it was not "fairly well known". I will also check out the > traverser api. > > @Tero > I tried the same query using the internal id instead of my mapping index > (lucene) > > orig: > START n=node:words(w_id = '137') MATCH n-[:CO_S]->m, n-[:CO_S]-> t, > m-[r:CO_S]-> t return m.w_id, t.w_id, r.sig, r.freq > took: 662ms (average of 100 runs after 10 warmups) > > new: > START n=node(119) MATCH n-[:CO_S]->m, n-[:CO_S]-> t, m-[r:CO_S]-> t > return m.w_id, t.w_id, r.sig, r.freq > took: 644ms (average of 100 runs after 10 warmups) > > So it doesn't seem to be much more faster not using the index for node > lookup. > > I will check out your posts concerning Lucene Index. > > Greetings, Martin > > Am 30.11.2011 18:08, schrieb Krzysztof Raczyński: >> It is fairly well known that cypher queries are not (yet) optimised. >> If speed is a concern for you, try using traversal API, i can confirm >> it is much faster than cypher. >> >> cheers >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ Neo4j mailing list User@lists.neo4j.org https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
