Am 01.12.2011 01:48, schrieb Michael Hunger: > Martin, Michael, :) > > would you be so kind as to test the current neo4j-1.6 snapshot with your > query? I used neo4j 1.6 M01 community edition for my tests. > > We did some changes in cypher and would like to see how that affects your > query. > > Thanks a lot > > Michael Greetings, Martin > > 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
_______________________________________________ Neo4j mailing list User@lists.neo4j.org https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
