[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15371168#comment-15371168
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on TINKERPOP-1254:
-------------------------------------------
Github user dkuppitz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/358
`docker/build.sh -t -i -n` succeeded (the latest 2 commits were not
included).
```
[INFO]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] BUILD SUCCESS
[INFO]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Total time: 5:43:44.864s
[INFO] Finished at: Mon Jul 11 16:59:26 UTC 2016
[INFO] Final Memory: 98M/543M
[INFO]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
```
VOTE: +1
I'll naively assume that the 2 latest commits didn't break anything.
As an aside: I think we a) shouldn't have PR's for work in progress or b)
clearly communicate that the PR is not yet ready for testing. The 4-6 hours for
a full test run are pretty much wasted if someone keeps adding more and more
changes.
> Support dropping traverser path information when it is no longer needed.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TINKERPOP-1254
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1254
> Project: TinkerPop
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: process
> Affects Versions: 3.1.1-incubating
> Reporter: Marko A. Rodriguez
> Assignee: Ted Wilmes
>
> The most expensive traversals (especially in OLAP) are those that can not be
> "bulked." There are various reasons why two traversers at the same object can
> not be bulked, but the primary reason is {{PATH}} or {{LABELED_PATH}}. That
> is, when the history of the traverser is required, the probability of two
> traversers having the same history is low.
> A key to making traversals more efficient is to do as a much as possible to
> remove historic information from a traverser so it can get bulked. How does
> one do this?
> {code}
> g.V.as('a').out().as('b').out().where(neq('a').and().neq('b')).both().name
> {code}
> The {{LABELED_PATH}} of "a" and "b" are required up to the {{where()}} and at
> which point, at {{both()}}, they are no longer required. It would be smart to
> support:
> {code}
> traverser.dropLabels(Set<String>)
> traverser.dropPath()
> {code}
> We would then, via a {{TraversalOptimizationStrategy}} insert a step between
> {{where()}} and {{both()}} called {{PathPruneStep}} which would be a
> {{SideEffectStep}}. The strategy would know which labels were no longer
> needed (via forward lookahead) and then do:
> {code}
> public class PathPruneStep {
> final Set<String> dropLabels = ...
> final boolean dropPath = ...
> public void sideEffect(final Traverser<S> traverser) {
> final Traverser<S> start = this.starts.next();
> if(this.dropPath) start.dropPath();
> else start.dropLabels(labels);
> }
> }
> {code}
> Again, the more we can prune historic path data no longer needed, the higher
> the probability of bulking. Think about this in terms of {{match()}}.
> {code}
> g.V().match(
> a.out.b,
> b.out.c,
> c.neq.a,
> c.out.b,
> ).select("a")
> {code}
> All we need is "a" at the end. Thus, once a pattern has been passed and no
> future patterns require that label, drop it!
> This idea is related to TINKERPOP-331, but I don't think we should deal with
> manipulating the species. Thus, I think 331 is too "low level."
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
