Was that what you meant?
My interpretation of Symeons request was an index from
(RelationshipType,Node,Node) to Relationship, which in my opinion would be
much more useful than a simple index from (String,primitive) to
Relationship, which is how the node indexes work.
That was exactly
2009/7/7 Symeon (Akis) Papadopoulos papa...@iti.gr:
Was that what you meant?
My interpretation of Symeons request was an index from
(RelationshipType,Node,Node) to Relationship, which in my opinion would be
much more useful than a simple index from (String,primitive) to
Relationship, which
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Symeon (Akis) Papadopoulos
papa...@iti.grwrote:
Perhaps the lookup method should have an additional argument specifying
whether the relationship is directed or not.
Good point, but I think it's better to add a specific method for that kind
of lookup:
Hi Peter,
Submitting patches would be a simple way to start, for now. I'll just
use my own local snapshots of trunk until they get folded in. I'll use
the keyword osgi on the trac tickets. For pax-exam tests, would you
prefer a separate directory, like src/exam/java or a naming convention
Hi Andreas,
thanks for your feedback!
IMHO the OSGi-friendliness-projects should occur in two steps:
1. Make all jars OSGi - lib - friendly
- see over the Manifest.mf for all components and check that we have
all required OSGi Attributes in there
- make sure there are no namespace clashes
On 7 jul 2009, at 14:17, Anders Nawroth wrote:
Hi Bert!
I think I solved the traverser part of my railnet example demo. I
extended the demo a little bit and made an as-complete-as-possible
write-up of it. I learned a lot with this demo exercise. The write-
up is
below, maybe of interest
Hi Jan,
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Jan Berkeljan.ber...@gmail.com wrote:
here's the log of the failed recovery (post-powercut)
It looks like the recovery was completed successfully and right after
it a normal relationship create failed. This is odd. In order to see
the real causes of the
Hello,
We have discussed this and given it some thought before. I think
having a global index on (node1,node2,relationship) will not work
well. Just managing that index will slow down relationship create and
delete a lot.
What we keep forgetting is that the graph already is the index. A well
Johan Svensson wrote:
Hello,
We have discussed this and given it some thought before. I think
having a global index on (node1,node2,relationship) will not work
well. Just managing that index will slow down relationship create and
delete a lot.
I agree. That's why, as Tobias noted in a
Starting with the APOC-bundle to guide the transition and provide both
a starting and reference point sounds really good to me.
I'd be willing to get started with a nice pax-constructed project in
labs, while you lounge away in Iceland. I'll try to time the biggest
changes for when you're
Hi Andreas,
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 17:31, Andreas
Kolleggerakolleg...@tembopublic.org wrote:
Starting with the APOC-bundle to guide the transition and provide both
a starting and reference point sounds really good to me.
I'd be willing to get started with a nice pax-constructed project in
Excellent exampleshow the capabilites of graph based DB and neo rules
it.
btw how are you planning to integrate the UI??
would you suggest using JRUBY for heavier load, i'v read it has certain
issues with slow script loading and multi threading.
regards
Ajay
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 6:03
2009/7/7 Adam Rabung adamrab...@gmail.com:
This approach works well for me. Thanks for the quick support!
Great to here that
Do you see any potential problems w/ keeping two instances of
LuceneIndexService around? I'd like to keep using LuceneIndexService
for fast and exact (Lucene's
13 matches
Mail list logo
