2011/8/6 Niels Hoogeveen <pd_aficion...@hotmail.com> > > This is the thread about store layer changes for type/direction, and in my > opinion this is still quite low hanging fruit. Sure, the impact needs to be > tested rigorously, which may take considerable time, but the implementation > is quite straight-forward and the potential gains are large. >
Agreeing to disagree. Implementing it shouldn't be very hard, but that's only a small part of it. It would require quite hefty amounts of testing to be considered production quality... not even mentioning writing and testing migration of existing databases. Or we just have different views of what kind of fruit to consider low hanging. > Niels > > Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 22:16:15 +0200 > > From: matt...@neotechnology.com > > To: user@lists.neo4j.org > > Subject: Re: [Neo4j] Node#getRelationshipTypes > > > > Oh, confused this thread with store layer changes for type/direction > > of relationships. This fruit in this thread is pretty low hanging. > > > > Den lördagen den 6:e augusti 2011 skrev Mattias > > Persson<matt...@neotechnology.com>: > > > I would not consider this low hanging fruit btw > > > > > > Den onsdagen den 3:e augusti 2011 skrev Niels > > > Hoogeveen<pd_aficion...@hotmail.com>: > > >> > > >> Hmmm... Does that require the inclusion of golden parachutes as well? > > >> Anyway, <addressing the readers of this message that have time > allocation authority>. I hope my suggestion, or another technical solution > that solves the same issues will be picked up for 1.5. This is as far as I > can tell pretty much low hanging fruit. There are probably all sorts of > tweaks that can improve the performance of Neo4j, but this one can improve > the performance of Neo4j big time (under certain conditions). As a user who > is confronted with several very densely connected nodes, I have tried all > sorts of means to solve my issues, but none as rewarding as a solution in > core would be. > > >> Niels > > >>> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 16:31:04 +0200 > > >>> From: matt...@neotechnology.com > > >>> To: user@lists.neo4j.org > > >>> Subject: Re: [Neo4j] Node#getRelationshipTypes > > >>> > > >>> A golden helicopter might do the trick :) > > >>> > > >>> 2011/8/3 Niels Hoogeveen <pd_aficion...@hotmail.com> > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > How does one persuade the time allocation authorities? > > >>> > Niels > > >>> > > > >>> > > Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:28:45 +0200 > > >>> > > From: matt...@neotechnology.com > > >>> > > To: user@lists.neo4j.org > > >>> > > Subject: Re: [Neo4j] Node#getRelationshipTypes > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Yup, it's a pretty sane approach and somewhat along the lines of > how I > > >>> > feel > > >>> > > it would be done. It's been said a long time that "this > functionality > > >>> > will > > >>> > > be implemented some day" and it's just that a significant amount > of time > > >>> > > have to be invested... maybe not for implementing it, but for > discovering > > >>> > > all bugs and inconveniences to have it on par with production > quality. > > >>> > And > > >>> > > that kind of time haven't been allocated yet. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > I appreciate your thoughts and time on all this! > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Best, > > >>> > > Mattias > > >>> > > > > >>> > > 2011/8/3 Niels Hoogeveen <pd_aficion...@hotmail.com> > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > I would like to make a suggestion that would both address my > feature > > >>> > > > request and increase performance of the database. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Right now the NodeRecord > > >>> > (org.neo4j.kernel.impl.nioneo.store.NodeRecord) > > >>> > > > contains the ID of the first Relationship, while the > RelationshipRecord > > >>> > > > contain the ID's of the previous and next relationship for both > sides > > >>> > of the > > >>> > > > relationship. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > My suggestion is as follows: > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Create a new store: > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > noderelationshiptypestore.db > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > The layout of this store is given by the > NodeRelationshipTypeRecord: > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > id > > >>> > > > previousrelationshiptype > > >>> > > > nextrelationshiptype > > >>> > > > firstrelationship > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > The NodeRecord would now need to point to the first outgoing > > >>> > > > NodeRelationshipType and to the first incoming > NodeRelationshipType > > >>> > instead > > >>> > > > of to the first Relationship. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > On insert of a Relationship, one side of the relationship will > update > > >>> > the > > >>> > > > store from the outgoing side, the other side will update the > store for > > >>> > the > > >>> > > > incoming side. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > I will list the steps to take here for the outgoing side (the > incoming > > >>> > side > > >>> > > > is almost identical). > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > From the NodeReco-- > > > Mattias Persson, [matt...@neotechnology.com] > > > Hacker, Neo Technology > > > www.neotechnology.com > > > > > > > -- > > Mattias Persson, [matt...@neotechnology.com] > > Hacker, Neo Technology > > www.neotechnology.com > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Mattias Persson, [matt...@neotechnology.com] Hacker, Neo Technology www.neotechnology.com _______________________________________________ Neo4j mailing list User@lists.neo4j.org https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
