On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:55 PM, jschweigl wrote:
> Once I find the time to set up a blog, I'l happily do that.
>
> What's still annoying me is that I do not understand the difference between
> the query pairs 7/8 and 9/10 ...
I'll have a go.
The difference between 7 and 8 is which relationship
Once I find the time to set up a blog, I'l happily do that.
What's still annoying me is that I do not understand the difference between
the query pairs 7/8 and 9/10 ...
--
View this message in context:
http://neo4j-community-discussions.438527.n3.nabble.com/cypher-question-subqueries-possible-t
wow, cool
I played once with parsing jaca ast's and putting the in neo4j to answer
similar question (also looking at metrics/dependency graphs)
please write it up!
Michael
mobile mail please excuse brevity and typos
Am 29.11.2011 um 13:59 schrieb jschweigl :
> Thanks for all the replies. To
Very cool Johann.
Mind writing this into a short blog post? Would love to see this code
and some short illustration on this, even for others to learn from it
...
Cheers,
/peter neubauer
GTalk: neubauer.peter
Skype peter.neubauer
Phone +46 704 106975
LinkedIn http://www.linkedi
Thanks for all the replies. To explain what I am doing: I'm harvesting
information from the software engineering tool some guys here are using:
Excel (gawk!). Excel sheets are parsed and converted to graphs,
incrementally enriched with properties as I digest subsequent sheets so that
at the end I g
you are right:
http://docs.neo4j.org/chunked/snapshot/cypher-cookbook.html#_basic_friend_finding_based_on_social_neighborhood
states
START joe=node:node_auto_index(name = "Joe")
MATCH joe-[:knows]->friend-[:knows]->friend_of_friend,
joe-[r?:knows]->friend_of_friend
WHERE r IS NULL
Am 29.11.2011
you might be right. I only used it the other way around (rel2 IS NOT
NULL) to guarante that the relationship is there. So I thought ... ;)
However, currently I am quite busy and cannot check easily.
That brings me to a feature request for neoclipse: The possibility to
type and execute a cypher
Shouldn't rel2 then be an optional relationship? Otherwise IMHO it can never be
null.
> START c=...
> MATCH c-[rel1:MyRel]->a, c-[rel2?:MyRel]->b
> WHERE rel2 is null
> RETURN c
Am 29.11.2011 um 13:00 schrieb D. Frej:
> I would recommend the following
>
> START c=...
> MATCH c-[rel1:MyRel]->a
I would recommend the following
START c=...
MATCH c-[rel1:MyRel]->a, c-[rel2:MyRel]->b
WHERE rel2 is null
RETURN c
even though it seems it little strange
Am 29.11.2011 03:03, schrieb KanTube:
> while not ideal you could do
>
> START
> a=node:node_auto_index(NodeType="A"),b=node:node_auto_index
while not ideal you could do
START
a=node:node_auto_index(NodeType="A"),b=node:node_auto_index(NodeType="B")
MATCH a-[:MyRel]->c<-[r?:MyRel]-b
RETURN c, count(r)
and in your code you could filter for count(r) = 0
--
View this message in context:
http://neo4j-community-discussions.438527.n3.n
If you were doing this in a single traversal, every time you encountered a
node type C, you would have to ask for all it's relationships and dig inside
the end node of those relationships to see if any of them have a property
type for node B.
In two traversals, you'd get an array of all the Cs t
Johan,
got a graph picture on this?
Cheers,
/peter neubauer
GTalk: neubauer.peter
Skype peter.neubauer
Phone +46 704 106975
LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/neubauer
Twitter http://twitter.com/peterneubauer
http://www.neo4j.org - NOSQL for the Enterprise.
Hi all,
I have three kinds of nodes A, B and C. Both type A and B (distinguished by
a property) have a relationship of the same type to node type C. I want to
find nodes C which have a relationship to A but not to B.
The only idea I came up with is to have a query return all A nodes having a
rela
13 matches
Mail list logo
