I'm guessing you just want some indication that there's a path (or no path)
between N1 and N2?
I guess a bit more context would help to determine what you're trying to do
exactly - what's the use case?
On Monday, July 14, 2014 1:01:13 AM UTC-4, Mars Agliullin wrote:
>
> Hello, group
>
> I have a use case for 'virtual' (i.e. created on the fly, not persistent
> in DB) relationships. Say, we're looking for pairs of nodes (n1), (n2) in
> DB, that are related somehow (e.g. traversable from n1 to n2). We're not
> interested in intermediate nodes or relationships between n1 and n2.
> Besides n1 and n2 (and their pairing) result set contains other
> components; e.g.:
>
> match (n0)-[r]->(n1)-[*1..10]->(n2)
> where ...
> return n0, r, [n1, n2]
>
> If graph format is used for results (good for its brevity), we either get
> the whole subgraph including components of all paths from n1 to n2, which
> may be huge and is not needed, or lose pairing between n1 and n2. A better
> alternative would be to return n1, n2 and a 'virtual' relationship from n1
> to n2:
>
> match (n0)-[r]->(n1)-[*1..10]->(n2)
> where ...
> return n0, r, n1, n2, relationship(n1, n2, "Some label", { name: "Some
> name" })
>
> , where relationship() is a proposed function, returning 'virtual'
> relationships.
>
> Any ideas?
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Neo4j" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to neo4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
