Unsurprisingly I'm also +1 for defaulting to DFS in OLTP. My feeling is that most users currently expect it to be DFS since that's what the docs say.
And yes, it's easy to verify the default in the test suite, once we agreed on what the default should be. Cheers Michael On 17/04/18 04:40, pieter gmail wrote: > Hi, > > I have not properly followed the previous thread. However I thought is > going to be a way to set the default behavior as apposed to needing to > use barrier() > Is this the case or not? > > For Sqlg at least it is possible to optimize BFS much more effectively > than DFS so it will be nice to have a way to set the strategy rather > than having to manually inject barriers. > > Is the test suite going to enforce the BFS vs DFS? > > Thanks > Pieter > > On 16/04/2018 16:56, Daniel Kuppitz wrote: >> +1 for DFS. If the query relies on BFS, you can always do >> .repeat(....barrier())... >> >> ^ This holds true as long as there's no significant difference in the >> cpu+memory consumption and overall performance of the two approaches. BFS >> has its advantages when it comes to bulking; an arbitrary number of >> traversers on the same element is processed at the same pace as a single >> traverser. I don't think we can benefit from bulking in DFS. >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:44 AM, Keith Lohnes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> As part of #838 <https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/838> there’s >>> some >>> discussion around whether or not to make DFS the default for the repeat >>> step. On the one hand, everything else in OLTP is depth first. On the >>> other >>> hand, there’s likely existing traversals that depend on the breadth >>> first >>> nature of repeat. My general preference is to make DFS optional at >>> first, >>> and at some later date, change the default and have that be a separate >>> change from implementing DFS for repeat >>> >>> > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
