On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 10:28 AM Marko Rodriguez <okramma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think we are very close to something useable for TP4 structure/. Solving
> this problem elegantly will open the flood gates on tp4/ development.
>
Yes, and formality often brings elegance. I don't think we can do much
better than relational algebra and relational calculus in terms of
formality, so to the extent we can reduce the fundamental TP4 traversal
steps to basic relational operations, the floodgates will also be open to
applications of query validation and query optimization from the last 40+
years of research.
> I still don’t grock your comeFrom().goto() stuff. I don’t get the benefit
> of having two instructions for “pointer chasing” instead of one.
>
There are just a handful of basic operations in relational algebra.
Projection, selection, union, complement, Cartesian product. Joins, as well
as all other operations, can be derived from these. A lot of graph
traversal can be accomplished using only projection and selection, which is
why we were able to get away with only to/goto and from/comeFrom in the
examples above. However, I believe you do need both operations. You can
kind of get away without from() if you assume that each vertex has local
inE and outE references to incoming and outgoing edges, but I see that as a
kind of pre-materialized from()/select(). If you think of edges strictly as
relations, and represent them in a straightforward way with tables, you
don't need the local inE and outE; whether you have them depends on the
graph back-end.
> Lets put that aside for now and lets turn to modeling a Vertex. Go back to
> my original representation:
>
> vertex.goto(‘label’)
> vertex.goto(‘id’)
>
Local (in my view). All good.
> vertex.goto(‘outE’)
> vertex.goto(‘inE’)
> vertex.goto(‘properties’)
>
Non-local (in my view). You can use goto(), but if the goal is to bring the
relational model into the fold, at a lower level you do have a select()
operation. Unless you make projections local to vertices instead of edges,
but then you just have the same problem in reverse. Am I making sense?
Any object can be converted into a Map. In TinkerPop3 we convert vertices
> into maps via:
>
> g.V().has(‘name’,’marko’).valueMap() => {name:marko,age:29}
> g.V().has(‘name’,’marko’).valueMap(true) =>
> {id:1,label:person,name:marko,age:29}
>
Maps are A-OK. In the case of properties, I think where we differ is that
you see a property like "name" as a key/value pair in a map local to the
vertex. I see the property as an element of type "name", with the vertex as
a value in its local map, logically if not physically. This allows maximum
flexibility in terms of meta-properties -- exotic beasts which seem to be
in a kind of limbo state in TP3, but if we're trying to be as general as
possible, some data models we might want to pull in, like GRAKN.AI, do
allow this kind of flexibility.
> In the spirit of instruction reuse, we should have an asMap() instruction
> that works for ANY object. (As a side: this gets back to ONLY sending
> primitives over the wire, no
> Vertex/Edge/Document/Table/Row/XML/ColumnFamily/etc.). Thus, the above is:
>
> g.V().has(‘name’,’marko’).properties().asMap() =>
> {name:marko,age:29}
> g.V().has(‘name’,’marko’).asMap() =>
> {id:1,label:person,properties:{name:marko,age:29}}
>
Again, no argument here, although I would think of a map as an
optimization. IMO, the fundamental projections from v[1] are id:1 and
label:Person. You could make a map out of these, or just use an offset,
since the keys are always the same. However, you can also build a map
including any key you can turn into a function. properties() is such a key.
You might ask, why didn’t it go to outE and inE and map-ify that data?
> Because those are "sibling” references, not “children” references.
>
> goto(‘outE’) is a “sibling” reference. (a vertex does not contain
> an edge)
> goto(‘id’) is a “child” reference. (a vertex contains the id)
>
I agree with both of those statements. A vertex does not contain the edges
incident on it. Again, I am thinking of properties a bit more like edges
for maximum generality.
> Where do we find sibling references?
> Graphs: vertices don’t contain each other.
> OO heaps: many objects don’t contain each other.
> RDBMS: rows are linked by joins, but don’t contain each other.
>
Yep.
So, the way in which we structure our references (pointers) determines the
> shape of the data and ultimately how different instructions will behave. We
> can’t assume that asMap() knows anything about
> vertices/edges/documents/rows/tables/etc. It will simply walk all
> child-references and create a map.
>
Just to play devil's advocate, you *could* include "inE" and "outE" as keys
in the local map of a vertex; it's just a matter of what you choose to do.
inE and outE are perfectly good functions from a vertex to a set of edges.
We don’t want TP to get involved in “complex data types.”
Well, how do you feel about algebraic data types? They are simple, and
allow you to capture arbitrary relations as elements.
> We don’t care. You can propagate MyDatabaseObject through the TP4 VM
> pipeline and load your object up with methods for optimizations with your
> DB and all that, but for TP4, your object is just needs to implement:
>
> ComplexType
> - Iterator<T> children(String label)
> - Iterator<T> siblings(String label)
> - default Iterator<T> references(String label) {
> IteratorUtils.concat(children(label), siblings(label)) }
> - String toString()
>
I don't think you need siblings(). I think you need a more generic
select(), but since this is graph traversal, select() only needs the
identifier of a type (e.g. "knows") and the name of a field (e.g. "out").
> When a ComplexType goes over the wire to the user, it just represented as
> a ComplexTypeProxy with a toString() like v[1],
> tinkergraph[vertices:10,edges:34], etc. All references are disconnected.
> Yes, even children references. We do not want language drivers having to
> know about random object types and have to deal with implementing
> serializers and all that non-sense. The TP4 serialization protocol is
> primitives, maps, lists, bytecode, and traversers. Thats it!
>
No disagreement here. I think the only disconnect is about what keys are
local to what elements. Some keys are hard-local, like id and type for all
elements, and "in" and "out" for edges and properties. These *should* be
carried over the wire. Properties, incident edges, etc. possibly but not
necessarily.
> *** Only Maps and Lists (that don’t contain complex data types) maintain
> their child references “over the wire.”
>
Sure.
> I don’t get your hypergraph example, so let me try another example:
>
> tp ==member==> marko, josh
>
> TP is a vertex and there is a directed hyperedge with label “member”
> connecting to marko and josh vertices.
>
That's kind of an unlabeled hyperedge; I am not sure we need to support
those. Look at the GRAKN data model, or at HypergraphDB or earlier
hypergraph data models. A hyperedge is essentially a tuple in which each
components has a label ("role", in GRAKN). In other words, it is a relation
in which some of the columns may be foreign keys. In your example, rather
than "member" connecting "tp" to a set of vertices, you might have
something like Collaborated{person1:marko, person2:josh, project=tp}. Then
a query like "who did marko collaborate with on tp?" becomes:
tp.from("Collaborated", "project").restrict("person1",
"marko").to("person2")
Of course, if you want this relationship to be symmetrical, you can
introduce a constraint.
> tp.goto(“outE”).filter(goto(“label”).is(“member”)).goto(“inV”)
>
> Looks exactly like a property graph query? However, its not because
> goto(“inV”) returns 2 vertices, not 1.
I think your example works well for the type of hypergraph you are
referring to. It's just different than the type of hypergraph I am
referring to. I think by now you know that I would rather see a from()
instead of that goto("outE"). I also agree you can make a function out of
outE, and expose it using a map, if you really want to. Under the hood,
however, I see this as traversing a projection head to tail rather than
tail to head.
> EdgeVertexFlatmapFunction works for property graphs and hypergraphs. It
> doesn’t care — it just follows goto() pointers! That is, it follows the
> ComplexType.references(“inV”). Multi-properties are the same as well.
> Likewise for meta-properties. These data model variations are not “special”
> to the TP4 VM. It just walks references whether there are 0,1,2, or N of
> them.
>
At a high level, I agree with what you are saying. We should have a common
data model that unifies traditional property graphs, hypergraphs,
relational databases, and any other data model that can be modeled using
algebraic data types with references. We define a small set of basic
operations on this data model which can be combined into more complex
operations that are amenable to static analysis and optimization. We can
send graph data over the wire as collections of elements using the bare
minimum of local fields, and reconstruct the graph on the other end. We can
operate on streams of such elements under suitable conditions (elements
sent in an appropriate order). The basic operations are not tied to the
JVM, and should be straightforward to implement in other frameworks.
>
> Thus, what is crucial to all this is the “shape of the data.” Using your
> pointers wisely so instructions produce useful results.
>
+1
> Does any of what I wrote update your comeFrom().goto() stuff?
Sadly, no, though I appreciate that you are coming from a slightly
different place w.r.t. properties, hypergraphs, and most importantly, the
role of a type system.
> If not, can you please explain to me why comeFrom() is cool — sorry for
> being dense (aka “being Kuppitz" — thats right, I said it. boom!).
>
Let's keep iterating until we reach a fixed point. Maybe Daniel's already
there.
Josh
>
> Thanks,
> Marko.
>
> http://rredux.com <http://rredux.com/>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 2019, at 10:25 AM, Joshua Shinavier <j...@fortytwo.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 5:14 AM Marko Rodriguez <okramma...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hey Josh,
> >>
> >> This gets to the notion I presented in “The Fabled GMachine.”
> >> http://rredux.com/the-fabled-gmachine.html <
> >> http://rredux.com/the-fabled-gmachine.html> (first paragraph of
> >> “Structures, Processes, and Languages” section)
> >>
> >> All that exists are memory addresses that contain either:
> >>
> >> 1. A primitive
> >> 2. A set of labeled references to other references or primitives.
> >>
> >> Using your work and the above, here is a super low-level ‘bytecode' for
> >> property graphs.
> >>
> >> v.goto("id") => 1
> >>
> >
> > LGTM. An id is special because it is uniquely identifying / is a primary
> > key for the element. However, it is also just a field of the element,
> like
> > "in"/"inV" and "out"/"outV" are fields of an edge. As an aside, an id
> would
> > only really need to be unique among other elements of the same type. To
> the
> > above, I would add:
> >
> > v.type() => Person
> >
> > ...a special operation which takes you from an element to its type. This
> is
> > important if unions are supported; e.g. "name" in my example can apply
> > either to a Person or a Project.
> >
> >
> > v.goto("label") => person
> >>
> >
> > Or that. Like "id", "type"/"label" is special. You can think of it as a
> > field; it's just a different sort of field which will have the same value
> > for all elements of any given type.
> >
> >
> >
> >> v.goto("properties").goto("name") => "marko"
> >>
> >
> > OK, properties. Are properties built-in as a separate kind of thing from
> > edges, or can we treat them the same as vertices and edges here? I think
> we
> > can treat them the same. A property, in the algebraic model I described
> > above, is just an element with two fields, the second of which is a
> > primitive value. As I said, I think we need two distinct traversal
> > operations -- projection and selection -- and here is where we can use
> the
> > latter. Here, I will call it "comeFrom".
> >
> > v.comeFrom("name", "out").goto("in") => {"marko"}
> >
> > You can think of this comeFrom as a special case of a select() function
> > which takes a type -- "name" -- and a set of key/value pairs {("out",
> v)}.
> > It returns all matching elements of the given type. You then project to
> the
> > "in" value using your goto. I wrote {"marko"} as a set, because comeFrom
> > can give you multiple properties, depending on whether multi-properties
> are
> > supported.
> >
> > Note how similar this is to an edge traversal:
> >
> > v.comeFrom("knows", "out").goto("in") => {v[2], v[4]}
> >
> > Of course, you could define "properties" in such a way that a
> > goto("properties") does exactly this under the hood, but in terms of low
> > level instructions, you need something like comeFrom.
> >
> >
> > v.goto("properties").goto("name").goto(0) => "m"
> >>
> >
> > This is where the notion of optionals becomes handy. You can make
> > array/list indices into fields like this, but IMO you should also make
> them
> > safe. E.g. borrowing Haskell syntax for a moment:
> >
> > v.goto("properties").goto("name").goto(0) => Just 'm'
> >
> > v.goto("properties").goto("name").goto(5) => Nothing
> >
> >
> > v.goto("outE").goto("inV") => v[2], v[4]
> >>
> >
> > I am not a big fan of untyped "outE", but you can think of this as a
> union
> > of all v.comeFrom(x, "out").goto("in"), where x is any edge type. Only
> > "knows" and "created" are edge types which are applicable to "Person", so
> > you will only get {v[2], v[4]}. If you want to get really crazy, you can
> > allow x to be any type. Then you get {v[2], v[4], 29, "marko"}.
> >
> >
> >
> >> g.goto("V").goto(1) => v[1]
> >>
> >
> > That, or you give every element a virtual field called "graph". So:
> >
> > v.goto("graph") => g
> >
> > g.comeFrom("Person", "graph") => {v[1], v[2], v[4], v[6]}
> >
> > g.comeFrom("Person", "graph").restrict("id", 1)
> >
> > ...where restrict() is the relational "sigma" operation as above, not to
> be
> > confused with TinkerPop's select(), filter(), or has() steps. Again, I
> > prefer to specify a type in comeFrom (i.e. we're looking specifically
> for a
> > Person with id of 1), but you could also do a comprehension g.comeFrom(x,
> > "graph"), letting x range over all types.
> >
> >
> >
> >> The goto() instruction moves the “memory reference” (traverser) from the
> >> current “memory address” to the “memory address” referenced by the
> goto()
> >> argument.
> >>
> >
> > Agreed, if we also think of primitive values as memory references.
> >
> >
> >
> >> The Gremlin expression:
> >>
> >> g.V().has(‘name’,’marko’).out(‘knows’).drop()
> >>
> >> ..would compile to:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> g.goto(“V”).filter(goto(“properties”).goto(“name”).is(“marko”)).goto(“outE”).filter(goto(“label”).is(“knows”)).goto(“inV”).free()
> >>
> >
> >
> > In the alternate universe:
> >
> > g.comeFrom("Person", "graph").comeFrom("name", "out").restrict("in",
> > "marko").goto("out").comeFrom("knows", "out").goto("in").free()
> >
> > I have wimped out on free() and just left it as you had it, but I think
> it
> > would be worthwhile to explore a monadic syntax for traversals with
> > side-effects. Different topic.
> >
> > Now, all of this "out", "in" business is getting pretty repetitive,
> right?
> > Well, the field names become more diverse if we allow hyper-edges and
> > generalized ADTs. E.g. in my Trip example, say I want to know all
> drop-off
> > locations for a given rider:
> >
> > u.comeFrom("Trip", "rider").goto("dropoff").goto("place")
> >
> > Done.
> >
> >
> >
> >> If we can get things that “low-level” and still efficient to compile,
> then
> >> we can model every data structure. All you are doing is pointer chasing
> >> through a withStructure() data structure. .
> >>
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >
> > No one would ever want to write strategies for goto()-based Bytecode.
> >
> >
> > Also agreed.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Thus, perhaps there could be a PropertyGraphDecorationStrategy that
> does:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >
> >
> > No argument here, though the alternate-universe "bytecode" would look
> > slightly different. And the high-level syntax should also be able to deal
> > with generalized relations / data types gracefully. As a thought
> > experiment, suppose we were to define the steps to() as your goto(), and
> > from() as my comeFrom(). Then traversals like:
> >
> > u.from("Trip", "rider").to("dropoff").to("time")
> >
> > ...look pretty good as-is, and are not too low-level. However, ordinary
> > edge traversals like:
> >
> > v.from("knows", "out").to("in")
> >
> > ...do look a little Assembly-like. So in/out/both etc. remain as they
> are,
> > but are shorthand for from() and to() steps using "out" or "in":
> >
> > v.out("knows") === v.outE("knows").inV() === v.from("knows",
> "out").to("in")
> >
> >
> > [I AM NOW GOING OFF THE RAILS]
> >> [sniiiiip]
> >>
> >
> > Sure. Again, I like the idea of wrapping side-effects in monads. What
> would
> > that look like in a Gremlinesque fluent syntax? I don't quite know, but
> if
> > we think of the dot as a monadic bind operation like Haskell's >>=, then
> > perhaps the monadic expressions look pretty similar to what you have just
> > sketched out. Might have to be careful about what it means to nest
> > operations as in your addEdge examples.
> >
> >
> >
> > [I AM NOW BACK ON THE RAILS]
> >>
> >> Its as if “properties”, “outE”, “label”, “inV”, etc. references mean
> >> something to property graph providers and they can do more intelligent
> >> stuff than what MongoDB would do with such information. However,
> someone,
> >> of course, can create a MongoDBPropertyGraphStrategy that would make
> >> documents look like vertices and edges and then use O(log(n)) lookups on
> >> ids to walk the graph. However, if that didn’t exist, it would still do
> >> something that works even if its horribly inefficient as every database
> can
> >> make primitives with references between them!
> >>
> >
> > I'm on the same same pair of rails.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Anywho @Josh, I believe goto() is what you are doing with
> multi-references
> >> off an object. How do we make it all clean, easy, and universal?
> >>
> >
> > Let me know what you think of the above.
> >
> > Josh
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Marko.
> >>
> >> http://rredux.com <http://rredux.com/>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Apr 22, 2019, at 6:42 PM, Joshua Shinavier <j...@fortytwo.net>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Ah, glad you asked. It's all in the pictures. I have nowhere to put
> them
> >> online at the moment... maybe this attachment will go through to the
> list?
> >>>
> >>> Btw. David Spivak gave his talk today at Uber; it was great. Juan
> >> Sequeda (relational <--> RDF mapping guy) was also here, and Ryan joined
> >> remotely. Really interesting discussion about databases vs. graphs, and
> >> what category theory brings to the table.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 1:45 PM Marko Rodriguez <okramma...@gmail.com
> >> <mailto:okramma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>> Hey Josh,
> >>>
> >>> I’m digging what you are saying, but the pictures didn’t come through
> >> for me ? … Can you provide them again (or if dev@ is filtering them,
> can
> >> you give me URLs to them)?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Marko.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 21, 2019, at 12:58 PM, Joshua Shinavier <j...@fortytwo.net
> >> <mailto:j...@fortytwo.net>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On the subject of "reified joins", maybe be a picture will be worth a
> >> few words. As I said in the thread <
> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gremlin-users/_s_DuKW90gc/Xhp5HMfjAQAJ
> <
> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gremlin-users/_s_DuKW90gc/Xhp5HMfjAQAJ
> >>
> >> on property graph standardization, if you think of vertex labels, edge
> >> labels, and property keys as types, each with projections to two other
> >> types, there is a nice analogy with relations of two columns, and this
> >> analogy can be easily extended to hyper-edges. Here is what the schema
> of
> >> the TinkerPop classic graph looks like if you make each type (e.g.
> Person,
> >> Project, knows, name) into a relation:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I have made the vertex types salmon-colored, the edge types yellow,
> >> the property types green, and the data types blue. The "o" and "I"
> columns
> >> represent the out-type (e.g. out-vertex type of Person) and in-type
> (e.g.
> >> property value type of String) of each relation. More than two arrows
> from
> >> a column represent a coproduct, e.g. the out-type of "name" is Person OR
> >> Project. Now you can think of out() and in() as joins of two tables on a
> >> primary and foreign key.
> >>>>
> >>>> We are not limited to "out" and "in", however. Here is the ternary
> >> relationship (hyper-edge) from hyper-edge slide <
> >>
> https://www.slideshare.net/joshsh/a-graph-is-a-graph-is-a-graph-equivalence-transformation-and-composition-of-graph-data-models-129403012/49
> >> <
> >>
> https://www.slideshare.net/joshsh/a-graph-is-a-graph-is-a-graph-equivalence-transformation-and-composition-of-graph-data-models-129403012/49
> >>
> >> of my Graph Day preso, which has three columns/roles/projections:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I have drawn Says in light blue to indicate that it is a generalized
> >> element; it has projections other than "out" and "in". Now the line
> between
> >> relations and edges begins to blur. E.g. in the following, is
> PlaceEvent a
> >> vertex or a property?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> With the right type system, we can just speak of graph elements, and
> >> use "vertex", "edge", "property" when it is convenient. In the
> relational
> >> model, they are relations. If you materialize them in a relational
> >> database, they are rows. In any case, you need two basic graph traversal
> >> operations:
> >>>> project() -- forward traversal of the arrows in the above diagrams.
> >> Takes you from an element to a component like in-vertex.
> >>>> select() -- reverse traversal of the arrows. Allows you to answer
> >> questions like "in which Trips is John Doe the rider?"
> >>>>
> >>>> Josh
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:03 AM Marko Rodriguez <
> okramma...@gmail.com
> >> <mailto:okramma...@gmail.com> <mailto:okramma...@gmail.com <mailto:
> >> okramma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree with everything you say. Here is my question:
> >>>>
> >>>> Relational database — join: Table x Table x equality function
> >> -> Table
> >>>> Graph database — traverser: Vertex x edge label -> Vertex
> >>>>
> >>>> I want a single function that does both. The only think was to
> >> represent traverser() in terms of join():
> >>>>
> >>>> Graph database — traverser: Vertices x Vertex x equality
> >> function -> Vertices
> >>>>
> >>>> For example,
> >>>>
> >>>> V().out(‘address’)
> >>>>
> >>>> ==>
> >>>>
> >>>> g.join(V().hasLabel(‘person’).as(‘a’)
> >>>> V().hasLabel(‘addresses’).as(‘b’)).
> >>>> by(‘name’).select(?address vertex?)
> >>>>
> >>>> That is, join the vertices with themselves based on some predicate to
> >> go from vertices to vertices.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, I would like instead to transform the relational database
> >> join() concept into a traverser() concept. Kuppitz and I were talking
> the
> >> other day about a link() type operator that says: “try and link to this
> >> thing in some specified way.” .. ?? The problem we ran into is again,
> “link
> >> it to what?”
> >>>>
> >>>> - in graph, the ‘to what’ is hardcoded so you don’t need to
> >> specify anything.
> >>>> - in rdbms, the ’to what’ is some other specified table.
> >>>>
> >>>> So what does the link() operator look like?
> >>>>
> >>>> ——
> >>>>
> >>>> Some other random thoughts….
> >>>>
> >>>> Relational databases join on the table (the whole collection)
> >>>> Graph databases traverser on the vertex (an element of the whole
> >> collection)
> >>>>
> >>>> We can make a relational database join on single row (by providing a
> >> filter to a particular primary key). This is the same as a table with
> one
> >> row. Likewise, for graph in the join() context above:
> >>>>
> >>>> V(1).out(‘address’)
> >>>>
> >>>> ==>
> >>>>
> >>>> g.join(V(1).as(‘a’)
> >>>> V().hasLabel(‘addresses’).as(‘b’)).
> >>>> by(‘name’).select(?address vertex?)
> >>>>
> >>>> More thoughts please….
> >>>>
> >>>> Marko.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://rredux.com <http://rredux.com/> <http://rredux.com/ <
> >> http://rredux.com/>> <http://rredux.com/ <http://rredux.com/> <
> >> http://rredux.com/ <http://rredux.com/>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Apr 19, 2019, at 4:20 AM, pieter martin <pieter.mar...@gmail.com
> >> <mailto:pieter.mar...@gmail.com> <mailto:pieter.mar...@gmail.com
> <mailto:
> >> pieter.mar...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>> The way I saw it is that the big difference is that graph's have
> >>>>> reified joins. This is both a blessing and a curse.
> >>>>> A blessing because its much easier (less text to type, less mistakes,
> >>>>> clearer semantics...) to traverse an edge than to construct a manual
> >>>>> join.A curse because there are almost always far more ways to
> >> traverse
> >>>>> a data set than just by the edges some architect might have
> >> considered
> >>>>> when creating the data set. Often the architect is not the domain
> >>>>> expert and the edges are a hardcoded layout of the dataset, which
> >>>>> almost certainly won't survive the real world's demands. In graphs,
> >> if
> >>>>> their are no edges then the data is not reachable, except via indexed
> >>>>> lookups. This is the standard engineering problem of database design,
> >>>>> but it is important and useful that data can be traversed, joined,
> >>>>> without having reified edges.
> >>>>> In Sqlg at least, but I suspect it generalizes, I want to create the
> >>>>> notion of a "virtual edge". Which in meta data describes the join and
> >>>>> then the standard to(direction, "virtualEdgeName") will work.
> >>>>> In a way this is precisely to keep the graphy nature of gremlin, i.e.
> >>>>> traversing edges, and avoid using the manual join syntax you
> >> described.
> >>>>> CheersPieter
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, 2019-04-18 at 14:15 -0600, Marko Rodriguez wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>> *** This is mainly for Kuppitz, but if others care.
> >>>>>> Was thinking last night about relational data and Gremlin. The T()
> >>>>>> step returns all the tables in the withStructure() RDBMS database.
> >>>>>> Tables are ‘complex values’ so they can't leave the VM (only a
> >> simple
> >>>>>> ‘toString’).
> >>>>>> Below is a fake Gremlin session. (and these are just ideas…) tables
> >>>>>> -> a ListLike of rows rows -> a MapLike of primitives
> >>>>>> gremlin> g.T()==>t[people]==>t[addresses]gremlin>
> >>>>>> g.T(‘people’)==>t[people]gremlin>
> >>>>>>
> >> g.T(‘people’).values()==>r[people:1]==>r[people:2]==>r[people:3]greml
> >>>>>> in>
> >>>>>>
> >> g.T(‘people’).values().asMap()==>{name:marko,age:29}==>{name:kuppitz,
> >>>>>> age:10}==>{name:josh,age:35}gremlin>
> >>>>>>
> >> g.T(‘people’).values().has(‘age’,gt(20))==>r[people:1]==>r[people:3]g
> >>>>>> remlin>
> >>>>>>
> >> g.T(‘people’).values().has(‘age’,gt(20)).values(‘name’)==>marko==>jos
> >>>>>> h
> >>>>>> Makes sense. Nice that values() and has() generally apply to all
> >>>>>> ListLike and MapLike structures. Also, note how asMap() is the
> >>>>>> valueMap() of TP4, but generalizes to anything that is MapLike so it
> >>>>>> can be turned into a primitive form as a data-rich result from the
> >>>>>> VM.
> >>>>>> gremlin> g.T()==>t[people]==>t[addresses]gremlin>
> >>>>>>
> >> g.T(‘addresses’).values().asMap()==>{name:marko,city:santafe}==>{name
> >>>>>> :kuppitz,city:tucson}==>{name:josh,city:desertisland}gremlin>
> >>>>>> g.join(T(‘people’).as(‘a’),T(‘addresses’).as(‘b’)).
> >> by(se
> >>>>>> lect(‘a’).value(’name’).is(eq(select(‘b’).value(’name’))).
> >>
> >>>>>> values().asMap()==>{a.name:marko,a.age:29,b.name:
> >> marko,b.city:santafe
> >>>>>> }==>{a.name:kuppitz,a.age:10,b.name:kuppitz,b.city:tucson}==>{
> >> a.name <http://a.name/> <http://a.name/ <http://a.name/>>:
> >>>>>> josh,a.age:35,b.name:josh,b.city:desertisland}gremlin>
> >>>>>> g.join(T(‘people’).as(‘a’),T(‘addresses’).as(‘b’)).
> >> by(’n
> >>>>>> ame’). // shorthand for equijoin on name
> >>>>>> column/key values().asMap()==>{a.name:marko,a.age:29,
> >> b.name <http://b.name/> <http://b.name/ <http://b.name/>>
> >>>>>> :marko,b.city:santafe}==>{a.name:kuppitz,a.age:10,b.name:kuppitz,
> >> b.ci <http://b.ci/> <http://b.ci/ <http://b.ci/>>
> >>>>>> ty:tucson}==>{a.name:josh,a.age:35,b.name:
> >> josh,b.city:desertisland}gr
> >>>>>> emlin>
> >>>>>> g.join(T(‘people’).as(‘a’),T(‘addresses’).as(‘b’)).
> >> by(’n
> >>>>>> ame’)==>t[people<-name->addresses] // without asMap(), just the
> >>>>>> complex value ‘toString'gremlin>
> >>>>>> And of course, all of this is strategized into a SQL call so its
> >>>>>> joins aren’t necessarily computed using TP4-VM resources.
> >>>>>> Anywho — what I hope to realize is the relationship between “links”
> >>>>>> (graph) and “joins” (tables). How can we make (bytecode-wise at
> >>>>>> least) RDBMS join operations and graph traversal operations ‘the
> >>>>>> same.’?
> >>>>>> Singleton: Integer, String, Float, Double, etc. Collection:
> >>>>>> List, Map (Vertex, Table, Document) Linkable: Vertex, Table
> >>>>>> Vertices and Tables can be “linked.” Unlike Collections, they don’t
> >>>>>> maintain a “parent/child” relationship with the objects they
> >>>>>> reference. What does this mean……….?
> >>>>>> Take care,Marko.
> >>>>>> http://rredux.com <http://rredux.com/> <http://rredux.com/ <
> >> http://rredux.com/>> <http://rredux.com/ <http://rredux.com/> <
> >> http://rredux.com/ <http://rredux.com/>>> <http://rredux.com/ <
> >> http://rredux.com/> <http://rredux.com/ <http://rredux.com/>> <
> >> http://rredux.com/ <http://rredux.com/> <http://rredux.com/ <
> >> http://rredux.com/>>>>
> >>>
> >>> <diagrams.zip>
> >>
> >>
>
>
