Hey all, We've elevated this thread into a tracked discussion at: http://help.neo4j.org/discussions/questions/3-neo4j-check-if-node-exists-in-neo4j-index-possible-bug-in-the-remove-function
Feel free to add yourself as a watcher there, and we'll report back here when it's been resolved. This is part of an evaluation of Tender that we're conducting, to better support issue resolution. The mailing list is still the place to start conversations, which we'll bump up to help.neo4j.org as appropriate, and attach issue tracking with Lighthouse (also being evaluated) as needed. Of course, we're still working out the mechanics that will make this a good experience. Please let us know what you think. Cheers, Andreas On Jun 13, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Peter Neubauer wrote: > Rick, > good finds! Mattias is back from vacation next week, meanwhile, I will > keep this open in order to ask him and get back here. Chris, do you > have any info 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 - Your high performance graph database. > http://startupbootcamp.org/ - Öresund - Innovation happens HERE. > http://www.thoughtmade.com - Scandinavia's coolest Bring-a-Thing party. > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Rick Bullotta > <rick.bullo...@thingworx.com> wrote: >> Hi, all. >> >> A couple index framework questions: >> >> >> 1) There does not seem to be a built-in API call to determine whether >> or not a node exists in a specific Index<Node>. After looking into the >> index structures with Luke (the must-have tool for anyone working with >> Lucene), it appears that each node has a "virtual field" named _id_ that >> could be used in with index.get("_id_",nodeID) to do this check. Is this a >> reasonable approach? Can we count on the _id_ field name being consistent >> in future versions of Neo4J >> >> >> 2) The remove(node) method is supposed to remove the node from the >> index. In the case where the node wasn't in the index, what it appears to >> do is actually *add* the node to the index as an empty document. If it was >> in the index, it deletes all of the field values except the _id_ field but >> leaves the node (document) in the index. This seems like it will lead to >> ever decreasing performance as these "ghost nodes" or "ghost documents" >> accumulate. >> >> >> We are testing w/1.4M04, if that matter. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Rick >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Neo4j mailing list >> User@lists.neo4j.org >> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user >> > _______________________________________________ > Neo4j mailing list > User@lists.neo4j.org > https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user _______________________________________________ Neo4j mailing list User@lists.neo4j.org https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
