they belong.
From: tobias.ivars...@neotechnology.com
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 15:33:04 +0200
To: user@lists.neo4j.org
Subject: Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not
nodes; why?
The RelationshipType isn't a type. It is a navigational feature.
I've slapped
.
From: rick.bullo...@thingworx.com
To: user@lists.neo4j.org
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 08:51:59 -0700
Subject: Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not
nodes; why?
I would say that the same is true of a type on a node - it could be a
significant performance optimization
Am 05.05.2011 19:19, schrieb Rick Bullotta:
In general, I think it's a good idea to avoid strings as types for a whole
host of reasons (performance, future renaming/refactoring, etc.).
Having type-ids for performance reasons instead of type-strings is okay,
but because of future
...@lists.neo4j.org [mailto:user-boun...@lists.neo4j.org] On
Behalf Of Achim 'ahzf' Friedland
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:44 PM
To: Neo4j user discussions
Subject: Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not
nodes; why?
Am 05.05.2011 19:19, schrieb Rick Bullotta:
In general, I think it's
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:44 PM
To: Neo4j user discussions
Subject: Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not
nodes; why?
Am 05.05.2011 19:19, schrieb Rick Bullotta:
In general, I think it's a good idea to avoid strings as types for a whole
host of reasons
...@lists.neo4j.org [mailto:user-boun...@lists.neo4j.org] On
Behalf Of Niels Hoogeveen
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:22 PM
To: user@lists.neo4j.org
Subject: Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not
nodes; why?
I think the basic confusion surrounding this issue
think of would be node, something that doesn't add
any information.
From: rick.bullo...@thingworx.com
To: user@lists.neo4j.org
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 10:25:58 -0700
Subject: Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not
nodes; why?
Respectfully disagree. In many domains
reasonable label
I can think of would be node, something that doesn't add any information.
From: rick.bullo...@thingworx.com
To: user@lists.neo4j.org
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 10:25:58 -0700
Subject: Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not
nodes; why?
Respectfully
@lists.neo4j.org
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 10:25:58 -0700
Subject: Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not
nodes; why?
Respectfully disagree. In many domains, it is valuable to know the type
of the domain object a node represents in situ with no knowledge
whatsoever of its place
.
From: michael.hun...@neotechnology.com
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 22:37:19 +0200
To: user@lists.neo4j.org
Subject: Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not
nodes; why?
Sorry meant Niels of course ;)
Sent from my iBrick4
Am 05.05.2011 um 22:35 schrieb Michael
10 matches
Mail list logo