So, I have a structure that resembles a linked-list. Each node has a prev field for an id to the previous node, and I link them together using a chain relationship. There are some cases when a node is not part of this chain, ie, it's "prev" points to another node, but nothing points to it.. or only 1 node points to it.
I want to take a "slice" of this list, only including the nodes that are directly linked. ie, from the point of node A, back to node B, return all nodes in between.
This is what I have so far
match (fb {id: A}) - [:chain] -> (eb {id:B})
return fb
However, it returns no results... I think I need it to go recursive in some way, but I'm not sure how to indicate that. I've tried using :chain*, but this tends to process forever. I think I need a way to limit it..
How do I do this?
What about this?
MATCH (fb {id: A})-[:chain*1..10]->(eb {id:B})
RETURN fb
That should limit it to 10 levels. You can change that if you like, obviously, but it affects performance
EDIT: Was just reading this guide to performance tuning:
http://neo4j.com/developer/guide-performance-tuning/
One bit that caught my eye:
If you’re using queries that will have a relatively large working set
(ie. will be traversing long paths, looking at lots of properties, or
collecting large sets of results in order to do sorting, etc) then
you’ll need a larger working heap. If you have small queries that do
very limited traversals and return small amounts of data, you need
less. Assume 1-2GB to start and tune from there
Related
I have a large graph (1,068,029 nodes and 2,602,897 relationships), and I work with it via the python API and make requests to the graph in my program flow.
I have the following queries -
First query
MATCH
(start_node)--(o:observed_data)--(i:indicator)--(m:malware)--(end_node:attack_pattern)
WHERE start_node.id in [id_list]
RETURN start_node.id, end_node.name
Second query
MATCH
(start_node)--(o1:observed_data)--(h:MD5)--(o2:observed_data)--(i:indicator)--(m:malware)--(end_node:attack_pattern)
WHERE start_node.id in [id_list]
RETURN start_node.id, end_node.name
When I trying to preform the first query with id_list of size 75,000 its passes OK and returns the wanted output, but when I trying to preform the second query - the graph gets stuck, even when I decreasing the id_list to 20,000.
The id_list is even larger than 75,000 but I split it into chunks in order to make the graph's response time faster, but if I will split it to too many chunks I will increase the number of requests to the graph, and increase the program run-time.
My question is - Is there a library's function of some sort (APOC or something like that) that performs the same action but in less time? Or maybe you have another solution that solves this problem without decreasing the id_list under 50,000?
The (start_node) in your MATCH patterns should specify a label (like (start_node:Foo)), to avoid having to scan every node in the DB. Also, you should create an index (or uniqueness constraint) for that start node.
You should make all the relationships in your MATCH patterns directional, if appropriate. That is, put an arrow on either end.
You should specify the relationship types in your patterns as well (like ()-[:BAR]->()), so that the query would not be forced to evaluate all relationship types.
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.
We have a Neo4J database representing an evolutionary process with about 100K nodes and 200K relations. Nodes are individuals in generations, and edges represent parent-child relationships. The primary goal is to be able to take one or nodes of interest in the final generation, and explore their evolutionary history (roughly, "how did we get here?").
The "obvious" first query to find all their ancestors doesn't work because there are just too many possible ancestors and paths through that space:
match (a)-[:PARENT_OF*]->(c {is_interesting: true})
return distinct a;
So we've pre-processed the data so that some edges are marked as "special" such that almost every node has at most one "special" parent edge, although occasionally both parent edges are marked as "special". My hope, then, was that this query would (efficiently) generate the (nearly) unique path along "special" edges:
match (a)-[r:PARENT_OF* {special: true}]->(c {is_interesting: true})
return distinct a;
This, however, is still unworkably slow.
This is frustrating because "as a human", the logic is simple: Start from the small number of "interesting" nodes (often 1, never more than a few dozen), and chase back along the almost always unique "special" edges. Assuming a very low number of nodes with two "special" parents, this should be something like O(N) where N is the number of generations back in time.
In Neo4J, however, going back 25 steps from a unique "interesting" node where every step is unique, however, takes 30 seconds, and once there's a single bifurcation (where both parents are "special") it gets worse much faster as a function of steps. 28 steps (which gets us to the first bifurcation) takes 2 minutes, 30 (where there's still only the one bifurcation) takes 6 minutes, and I haven't even thought to try the full 100 steps to the beginning of the simulation.
Some similar work last year seemed to perform better, but we used a variety of edge labels (e.g., (a)-[:SPECIAL_PARENT_OF*]->(c) as well as (a)-[:PARENT_OF*]->(c)) instead of using data fields on the edges. Is querying on relationship field values just not a good idea? We have quite a few different values attached to a relationship in this model (some boolean, some numeric) and we were hoping/assuming we could use those to efficiently limit searches, but maybe that wasn't really the case.
Suggestions for how to tune our model or queries would be greatly appreciated.
Update I should have mentioned, this is all with Neo4J 2.1.7. I'm going to give 2.2 a try as per Brian Underwood's suggestion and will report back.
I've had some luck with specifying a limit on the path length. So if you know that it's never more than 30 hops you might try:
MATCH (c {is_interesting: true})
WITH c
MATCH (a)-[:PARENT_OF*1..30]->c
RETURN DISTINCT a
Also, is there an index on the is_interesting property? That could also cause slowness, for sure.
What version of Neo4j are you using? If you are using or if you upgrade to 2.2.0, you get to use the new query profiling tools:
http://neo4j.com/docs/2.2.0/how-do-i-profile-a-query.html
Also if you use them in the web console you get a nice graph-ish tree thing (technical term) showing each step.
After exploring things with the profiling tools in Neo4J 2.2 (thanks to Brian Underwood for the tip) it's pretty clear that (at the moment) Neo4J doesn't do any pre-filtering on edge properties, which leads to nasty combinatorial explosions with long paths.
For example the original query:
match (a)-[r:PARENT_OF* {special: true}]->(c {is_interesting: true})
return distinct a;
finds all the paths from a to c and then eliminates the ones that have edges that aren't special. Since there are many millions of paths from a to c, this is totally infeasible.
If I instead add a IS_SPECIAL edge wherever there was a PARENT_OF edge that had {special: true}, then the queries become really fast, allowing me to push back around 100 generations in under a second.
This query creates all the new edges:
match (a)-[r:PARENT_OF {special: true}]->(b)
create (a)-[:IS_SPECIAL]->(b);
and takes under a second to add 91K relationships in our graph.
Then
match (c {is_interesting: true})
with c
match (a)-[:IS_SPECIAL*]->(c)
return distinct a;
takes under a second to find the 112 nodes along the "special" path back from a unique target node c. Matching c first and limiting the set of nodes using with c seems to also be important, as Neo4J doesn't appear to pre-filter on node properties either, and if there are several "interesting" target nodes things get a lot slower.
I have identified that some queries happen to return less results than expected. I have taken one of the missing results and tried to force Neo4j to return this result - and I succeeded with the following query:
match (q0),(q1),(q2),(q3),(q4),(q5)
where
q0.name='v4' and q1.name='v3' and q2.name='v5' and
q3.name='v1' and q4.name='v3' and q5.name='v0' and
(q1)-->(q0) and (q0)-->(q3) and (q2)-->(q0) and (q4)-->(q0) and
(q5)-->(q4)
return *
I have supposed that the following query is semantically equivalent to the previous one. However in this case, Neo4j returns no result at all.
match (q1)-->(q0), (q0)-->(q3), (q2)-->(q0), (q4)-->(q0), (q5)-->(q4)
where
q0.name='v4' and q1.name='v3' and q2.name='v5' and
q3.name='v1' and q4.name='v3' and q5.name='v0'
return *
I have also manually verified that the required edges among vertices v0, v1, v3, v4 and v5 are present in the database with right directions.
Am I missing some important difference between these queries or is it just a bug of Neo4j? (I have tested these queries on Neo4j 2.1.6 Community Edition.)
Thank you for any advice
/EDIT: Updating to newest version 2.2.1 was of no help.
This might not be a complete answer, but here's what I found out.
These queries aren't synonymous, if I understand correctly.
First of all, use EXPLAIN (or even PROFILE) to look under the hood. The first query will be executed as follows:
The second query:
As you can see (even without going deep down), those are different queries in terms of both efficiency and semantics.
Next, what's actually going on here:
the 1st query will look through all (single) nodes, filter them by name, then - try to group them according to your pattern, which will involve computing Cartesian product (hence the enormous space complexity), then collect those groups into the larger ones, and then evaluate your other conditions.
the 2nd query will first pick a pair of nodes connected with some relationship (which satisfy the condition on the name property), then throw in the third node and filter again, ..., and so on till the end. The number of nodes is expected to decrease after every filter cycle.
By the way, is it possible that you accidentally set the same name twice (for q1 and q3?)
I'm not sure that title is worded very well, but not sure how else to. I'm populating a Neo4j database with some data.
The data is mainly generated from data I have about pairs of users. There is a percentage relationship between users, such as:
80
A ---> B
But the reverse relation is not the same:
60
A <--- B
I could put both relations in, but I think what I might do, is use the mean:
70
A <--> B
But I'm open to suggestions here.
What I want to do in Neo4j, is get groups of related users. So for example, I want to get a group of users with mean % relation > 50. So, if we have:
A
40 / \ 60
B --- C ------ D
20 70
We'd get back a subset, something like:
A
\ 60
C ------ D
70
I have no idea how to do that. Another thing is that I'm pretty sure it'd not be possible to reach any node from any other node, I think it's disjointed. Like, several large graphs. But I'd like to be able to get everything that falls into the above, even if some groups of nodes are completely separate from other nodes.
As an idea for numbers, there will be around 100,000 nodes and 550,000 edges
A couple thoughts.
First, it's fine if your graph isn't connected, but you need some way to access every component you want to analyze. In a disconnected graph in Neo4j, that either means Lucene indexing, some external "index" that holds node or relationship ids, or iterating through all nodes or relationships in the DB (which is slow, but might be required by your problem).
Second, though I don't know your domain, realize that sticking with the original representation and weights might be fine. Neo doesn't have undirected edges (though you can just ignore edge direction), and you might need that data later. OTOH, your modification taking the mean of the weights does simplify your analysis.
Third- depending on the size and characteristics of your graph, this could be very slow. It sounds like you want all connected components in the subgraph built from the edges with a weight greater 50. AFAIK, that requires an O(N) operation over your database, where N is the number of edges in the DB. You could iterate over all edges in your DB, filter based on their weight, and then cluster from there.
Using Gremlin/Groovy, you can do this pretty easily. Check out the Gremlin docs.
Another approach might be some sort of iterative clustering as you insert your data. It occurs to me that this could be a significant real-word performance improvement, though it doesn't get around the O(N) necessity.
Maybe something like http://tinyurl.com/c8tbth4 is applicable here?
start a=node(*) match p=a-[r]-()-[t]-() where r.percent>50 AND t.percent>50 return p, r.percent, t.percent