I want to find paths of a certain length between two nodes - but I don't know what relationships are involved. The tutorials and examples seems to require I know what type of relationship I want to use. E.g.
MATCH (martin { name:"Martin Sheen" })-[:ACTED_IN*1..3]-(x)
RETURN x
I want to ask the graph:
MATCH (martin { name:"Martin Sheen" })-[:3..3]-(x)
RETURN x
But Neo4J seems to hang (I have 600,000 nodes / 1.3m relationships). How can I find paths of a certain length between two nodes, in a performant manner, provided I have no information about the relationships?
Thanks
First of all, this is not surprising it is really slow. Since Neo4j2.0, the use of labels is almost mandatory for performance reasons.
So make sure to use labels + an indexed property at least for matching your first node.
Secondly, you can just match paths of fixed length without knowing the relationship types.
Assuming your "Martin Sheen" node has a label Person :
Create index for Person/name :
CREATE INDEX ON :Person(name);
Match the person and the path
MATCH p=(martin:Person {name:"Martin Sheen"})-[*3..3]->(x)
RETURN p
Related
I would like to input two specific nodes and return the quantity of relationships that are along the path that connect the specific nodes.
(There is only 1 path possible in every case)
In some cases, two specific nodes are related through two relationships like this:
(Tim)-[]-()-[]-(Bill)
Should return 2 (relationships).
In other cases there are more nodes between my specific start and end nodes. Like this:
(Tim)-[]-()-[]-()-[]-()-[]-(Bill)
Should return 4 (relationships).
I have two types of relationships that could exist between nodes, so I need to avoid being specific about the type of relationship if possible.
New to this and performed an extensive search before asking this question as no one seemed to discuss relationships between specific nodes...
Many thanks for your help!
This query should work:
match p = (:Person {name:'Tim'})-[*]->(:Person {name:'Bill'})
RETURN length(p)
That is: return the length() of path p.
I have a neo4j graph that looks like this:
Nodes:
Blue Nodes: Account
Red Nodes: PhoneNumber
Green Nodes: Email
Graph design:
(:PhoneNumber) -[:PART_OF]->(:Account)
(:Email) -[:PART_OF]->(:Account)
The problem I am trying to solve is to
Find any path that exists between Account1 and Account2.
This is what I have tried so far with no success:
MATCH p=shortestPath((a1:Account {accId:'1234'})-[]-(a2:Account {accId:'5678'})) RETURN p;
MATCH p=shortestPath((a1:Account {accId:'1234'})-[:PART_OF]-(a2:Account {accId:'5678'})) RETURN p;
MATCH p=shortestPath((a1:Account {accId:'1234'})-[*]-(a2:Account {accId:'5678'})) RETURN p;
MATCH p=(a1:Account {accId:'1234'})<-[:PART_OF*1..100]-(n)-[:PART_OF]->(a2:Account {accId:'5678'}) RETURN p;
Same queries as above without the shortest path function call.
By looking at the graph I can see there is a path between these 2 nodes but none of my queries yield any result. I am sure this is a very simple query but being new to Cypher, I am having a hard time figuring out the right solution. Any help is appreciated.
Thanks.
All those queries are along the right lines, but need some tweaking to make work. In the longer term, though, to get a better system to easily search for connections between accounts, you'll probably want to refactor your graph.
Solution for Now: Making Your Query Work
The path between any two (n:Account) nodes in your graph is going to look something like this:
(a1:Account)<-[:PART_OF]-(:Email)-[:PART_OF]->(ai:Account)<-[:PART_OF]-(:PhoneNumber)-[:PART_OF]->(a2:Account)
Since you have only one type of relationship in your graph, the two nodes will thus be connected by an indeterminate number of patterns like the following:
<-[:PART_OF]-(:Email)-[:PART_OF]->
or
<-[:PART_OF]-(:PhoneNumber)-[:PART_OF]->
So, your two nodes will be connected through an indeterminate number of intermediate (:Account), (:Email), or (:PhoneNumber) nodes all connected by -[:PART_OF]- relationships of alternating direction. Unfortunately to my knowledge (and I'd love to be corrected here), using straight cypher you can't search for a repeated pattern like this in your current graph. So, you'll simply have to use an undirected search, to find nodes (a1:Account) and(a2:Account) connected through -[:PART_OF]- relationships. So, at first glance your query would look like this:
MATCH p=shortestPath((a1:Account { accId: {a1_id} })-[:PART_OF*]-(a2:Account { accId: {a2_id} }))
RETURN *
(notice here I've used cypher parameters rather than the integers you put in the original post)
That's very similar to your query #3, but, like you said - it doesn't work. I'm guessing what happens is that it doesn't return a result, or returns an out of memory exception? The problem is that since your graph has circular paths in it, and that query will match a path of any length, the matching algorithm will literally go around in circles until it runs out of memory. So, you want to set a limit, like you have in query #4, but without the directions (which is why that query doesn't work).
So, let's set a limit. Your limit of 100 relationships is a little on the large side, especially in a cyclical graph (i.e., one with circles), and could potentially match in the region of 2^100 paths.
As a (very arbitrary) rule of thumb, any query with a potential undirected and unlabelled path length of more than 5 or 6 may begin to cause problems unless you're very careful with your graph design. In your example, it looks like these two nodes are connected via a path length of 8. We also know that for any two nodes, the given minimum path length will be two (i.e., two -[:PART_OF]- relationships, one into and one out of a node labelled either :Email or :PhoneNumber), and that any two accounts, if linked, will be linked via an even number of relationships.
So, ideally we'd set out our relationship length between 2 and 10. However, cypher's shortestPath() function only supports paths with a minimum length of either 0 or 1, so I've set it between 1 and 10 in the example below (even though we know that in reality, the shortest path have a length of at least two).
MATCH p=shortestPath((a1:Account { accId: {a1_id} })-[:PART_OF*1..10]-(a2:Account { accId: {a2_id} }))
RETURN *
Hopefully, this will work with your use case, but remember, it may still be very memory intensive to run on a large graph.
Longer Term Solution: Refactor Graph and/or Use APOC
Depending on your use case, a better or longer term solution would be to refactor your graph to be more specific about relationships to speed up query times when you want to find accounts linked only by email or phone number - i.e. -[:ACCOUNT_HAS_EMAIL]- and -[:ACCOUNT_HAS_PHONE]-. You may then also want to use APOC's shortest path algorithms or path finder functions, which will most likely return a faster result than using cypher, and allow you to be more specific about relationship types as your graph expands to take in more data.
Beginner Cypher question. I know how to get all the nodes of a particular type attached to a particular person in my database. Here I am retrieving all the friends of a particular person, within 10 hops:
MATCH (rebecca:Person {name:"Rebecca"})-[r*1..10]->(friends:Friend)
RETURN rebecca, friends
But how would I extend this to get nodes of two types: either the friends, or the neighbours, of Rebecca?
You can filter on the label of the friends identifier :
MATCH (rebecca:Person {name:"Rebecca"})-[r*1..10]->(other)
WHERE ALL( x IN ["Friend","Neighbour"] WHERE x IN labels(other) )
RETURN rebecca, other
NB: The answer from InverseFalcon is perfectly valid, here it is just another way to do this filter.
Note that this is not really ideal, FRIEND and NEIGHBOUR are semantically best described as relationships and you can see here that when
going away from the natural way of thinking as a graph (relationships matters!) you suffer from it in your queries.
There isn't an OR we can use on the label in the MATCH itself, so you may have to filter with a WHERE clause:
MATCH (rebecca:Person {name:"Rebecca"})-[r*1..10]->(friendOrNeighbor)
WHERE friendOrNeighbor:Friend or friendOrNeighbor:Neighbor
RETURN DISTINCT rebecca, friendOrNeighbor
Keep in mind variable-length relationship matches like this are meant to find all possible paths up to the given max limit, so this is actually doing extra work that you may not need, that may be slow if there are many relationships within that local graph.
You may want to consider apoc.path.expandConfig() from APOC Procedures. If you use 'NODE_GLOBAL' for uniqueness, and specify the upper bound with maxLevel: 10, it's a much more efficient means of getting the nodes you want faster.
To keep things simple, as part of the ETL on my time-series data, I added a sequence number property to each row corresponding to 0..370365 (370,366 nodes, 5,555,490 properties - not that big). I later added a second property and named it "outeseq" (original) and "ineseq" (second) to see if an outright equivalence to base the relationship on might speed things up a bit.
I can get both of the following queries to run properly on up to ~30k nodes (LIMIT 30000) but past that, its just an endless wait. My JVM has 16g max (if it can even use it on a windows box):
MATCH (a:BOOK),(b:BOOK)
WHERE a.outeseq=b.outeseq-1
MERGE (a)-[s:FORWARD_SEQ]->(b)
RETURN s;
or
MATCH (a:BOOK),(b:BOOK)
WHERE a.outeseq=b.ineseq
MERGE (a)-[s:FORWARD_SEQ]->(b)
RETURN s;
I also added these in hopes of speeding things up:
CREATE CONSTRAINT ON (a:BOOK)
ASSERT a.outeseq IS UNIQUE
CREATE CONSTRAINT ON (b:BOOK)
ASSERT b.ineseq IS UNIQUE
I can't get the relationships created for the entire data set! Help!
Alternatively, I can also get bits of the relationships built with parameters, but haven't figured out how to parameterize the sequence over all of the node-to-node sequential relationships, at least not in a semantically general enough way to do this.
I profiled the query, but did't see any reason for it to "blow-up".
Another question: I would like each relationship to have a property to represent the difference in the time-stamps of each node or delta-t. Is there a way to take the difference between the two values in two sequential nodes, and assign it to the relationship?....for all of the relationships at the same time?
The last Q, if you have the time - I'd really like to use the raw data and just chain the directed relationships from one nodes'stamp to the next nearest node with the minimum delta, but didn't run right at this for fear that it cause scanning of all the nodes in order to build each relationship.
Before anyone suggests that I look to KDB or other db's for time series, let me say I have a very specific reason to want to use a DAG representation.
It seems like this should be so easy...it probably is and I'm blind. Thanks!
Creating Relationships
Since your queries work on 30k nodes, I'd suggest to run them page by page over all the nodes. It seems feasible because outeseq and ineseq are unique and numeric so you can sort nodes by that properties and run query against one slice at time.
MATCH (a:BOOK),(b:BOOK)
WHERE a.outeseq = b.outeseq-1
WITH a, b ORDER BY a.outeseq SKIP {offset} LIMIT 30000
MERGE (a)-[s:FORWARD_SEQ]->(b)
RETURN s;
It will take about 13 times to run the query changing {offset} to cover all the data. It would be nice to write a script on any language which has a neo4j client.
Updating Relationship's Properties
You can assign timestamp delta to relationships using SET clause following the MATCH. Assuming that a timestamp is a long:
MATCH (a:BOOK)-[s:FORWARD_SEQ]->(b:BOOK)
SET s.delta = abs(b.timestamp - a.timestamp);
Chaining Nodes With Minimal Delta
When relationships have the delta property inside, the graph becomes a weighted graph. So we can apply this approach to calculate the shortest path using deltas. Then we just save the length of the shortest path (summ of deltas) into the relation between the first and the last node.
MATCH p=(a:BOOK)-[:FORWARD_SEQ*1..]->(b:BOOK)
WITH p AS shortestPath, a, b,
reduce(weight=0, r in relationships(p) : weight+r.delta) AS totalDelta
ORDER BY totalDelta ASC
LIMIT 1
MERGE (a)-[nearest:NEAREST {delta: totalDelta}]->(b)
RETURN nearest;
Disclaimer: queries above are not supposed to be totally working, they just hint possible approaches to the problem.
My database contains about 300k nodes and 350k relationships.
My current query is:
start n=node(3) match p=(n)-[r:move*1..2]->(m) where all(r2 in relationships(p) where r2.GameID = STR(id(n))) return m;
The nodes touched in this query are all of the same kind, they are different positions in a game. Each of the relationships contains a property "GameID", which is used to identify the right relationship if you want to pass the graph via a path. So if you start traversing the graph at a node and follow the relationship with the right GameID, there won't be another path starting at the first node with a relationship that fits the GameID.
There are nodes that have hundreds of in and outgoing relationships, some others only have a few.
The problem is, that I don't know how to tell Cypher how to do this. The above query works for a depth of 1 or 2, but it should look like [r:move*] to return the whole path, which is about 20-200 hops.
But if i raise the values, the querys won't finish. I think that Cypher looks at each outgoing relationship at every single path depth relating to the start node, but as I already explained, there is only one right path. So it should do some kind of a DFS search instead of a BFS search. Is there a way to do so?
I would consider configuring a relationship index for the GameID property. See http://docs.neo4j.org/chunked/milestone/auto-indexing.html#auto-indexing-config.
Once you have done that, you can try a query like the following (I have not tested this):
START n=node(3), r=relationship:rels(GameID = 3)
MATCH (n)-[r*1..]->(m)
RETURN m;
Such a query would limit the relationships considered by the MATCH cause to just the ones with the GameID you care about. And getting that initial collection of relationships would be fast, because of the indexing.
As an aside: since neo4j reuses its internally-generated IDs (for nodes that are deleted), storing those IDs as GameIDs will make your data unreliable (unless you never delete any such nodes). You may want to generate and use you own unique IDs, and store them in your nodes and use them for your GameIDs; and, if you do this, then you should also create a uniqueness constraint for your own IDs -- this will, as a nice side effect, automatically create an index for your IDs.