Support in what way, have two edges, one for each direction or what Jasper
and Nick are suggesting?
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 5:35 PM John Gemignani <john.gemign...@bitnine.net>
wrote:
> I don't think having a default direction applied for a non-directed edge is
> a good idea; there wouldn't be a way to tell these edges apart later on.
>
> I think it might be a better idea to just support non-directed edges.
>
> John
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 3:35 PM Jasper Blues <jas...@liberation-data.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > The quirk behind that CYPHER comes from Neo4j’s property graph model:
> >
> > All edges have a direction
> > When direction is not relevant it can be ignored.
> >
> > This works will for read queries, for merge it is slightly quirky,
> however
> > I believe the specification is reasonable:
> >
> > If we MERGE with an edge that does not specify a direction, it is because
> > direction is irrelevant, just as in the read scenario
> > Given this, the result is to intentionally assign a random direction
> >
> > I think the above behavior is OK. It would also be reasonable to pick a
> > consistent direction, however this leads to potential compatibility
> issues:
> >
> > Users might start depending on an ‘implied’ direction
> > When porting to/from Neo4j (interoperability is a strength - being able
> to
> > attract users to the platform and have the users be confident they can
> > migrate if ever they want aids adoption).
> >
> > So my 2c: Do what Neo4j does, and make it random, because the intention
> is
> > “direction doesn’t matter”. However choosing a direction would also be
> ok.
> > I don’t think rejecting the MERGE is great, because it differs from how
> > other CYPHER graph DBs behave.
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 25, 2022, at 7:06 AM, Josh Innis <josh.in...@bitnine.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > The openCypher specification for MERGE has an ambiguous specification
> on
> > > the subject of undirected relationships.
> > >
> > > Per the document on page 119 in the section titled "Merge on an
> > undirected
> > > relationship":
> > >
> > > MERGE can also be used with an undirected relationship. When it needs
> to
> > > create a new one, it will pick a direction.
> > >
> > > Query:
> > > MATCH (charlie:Person {name: 'Charlie Sheen'}), (oliver:Person {name:
> > > 'Oliver Stone'})
> > > MERGE (charlie)-[r:KNOWS]-(oliver)
> > > RETURN r
> > >
> > > As 'Charlie Sheen' and 'Oliver Stone' do not know each other, this
> MERGE
> > > query will create a KNOWS relationship between them. The direction of
> the
> > > created relationship is arbitrary.
> > >
> > > We should probably clarify that. Having MERGE use undirected edges to
> > find
> > > paths is a potentially useful feature, but "The direction of the
> created
> > > relationship is arbitrary" is unclear and should be clarified.
> > >
> > > I believe there are two potential ways to solve this issue:
> > > Option 1: Do not let MERGE use undirected edges.
> > > Option 2: Have a default direction that AGE will use every time MERGE
> > > creates an edge where direction is not specified.
> > >
> > > Personally, I lean towards proposal 2 with the default direction being
> a
> > > right directed edge. The other way limits functionality, and as long as
> > the
> > > decision we make is expressed well in the documentation, I don't
> believe
> > it
> > > is too confusing.
> > >
> > > Please let us know what you think.
> >
> >
>
