I'd like to know just what the title says.
The reason I'd want this is to permit constrained read-only cypher queries to be executed; the data results would later be interpreted and serialized by a separate API layer.
I've seen code that makes basic assumptions in an attempt to mimic this behavior, e.g. the code might filter out any Cypher query that contains certain special words associated with write query structures (merge, create, delete, set, and so on).
This approach tends to be limited and naive though; if it very simply looks for those tokens, it would prevent a query like MATCH n WHERE n.label =~ '.*create.*' RETURN n even though it's a read-only query.
I'd really prefer not to do a full parse on a candidate query and then descend through the AST trying to figure out whether something is read-only or not (although I would gladly accept an answer that shows how to do this easily in java)
EDIT - I'm aware it's possible to start the entire database in read-only mode via the configuration property read_only=true, but this would be undesirable; no other aspect of the java API would be able to change the database.
EDIT 2 - I found another possible strategy, but I'm not sure of its advisability. Comments welcome on this, and potential downsides:
try (Transaction ignore = graphDb.beginTx()) {
ExecutionResult result = executionEngine.execute(query);
// Do nifty stuff with result, then...
// Force transaction to fail.
ignore.failure();
}
The idea here is that if queries happen within transactions and the transaction is always force-failed, then nothing can ever be written to the DB no matter what the result.
Read-only Cypher is (not yet) directly supported. However I can think of two workarounds for that:
1) assuming you're running a Neo4j enterprise cluster: you can set read_only=true on one instance. That instance is then used for the read only queries where the other cluster instances are used for r/w. A load balancer in front of the cluster can be set up to send the requests to the right instance.
2) Use a TransactionEventHandler that vetos a transaction if its TransactionData contains write operations. Just for fun I've invested some minutes to implement that, see https://github.com/sarmbruster/read-only-cypher - feedback is appreciated.
Related
I have a list of IPs that I want to filter out of many queries that I have in sumo logic. Is there a way to store that list of IPs somewhere so it can be referenced, instead of copy pasting it in every query?
For example, in a perfect world it would be nice to define a list of things like:
things=foo,bar,baz
And then in another query reference it:
where mything IN things
Right now I'm just copying/pasting. I think there may be a way to do this by setting up a custom data source and putting the IPs in there, but that seems like a very round-about way of doing it, and wouldn't help to re-use parts of a query that aren't data (eg re-use statements). Also their template feature is about parameterizing a query, not re-use across many queries.
Yes. There's a notion of Lookup Tables in Sumo Logic. Consult:
https://help.sumologic.com/docs/search/lookup-tables/create-lookup-table/
for details.
It allows to store some values (either manually once, or in a scheduled way as as a result of some query) with | save operator.
And then you can refer to these values using | lookup which is conceptually similar to SQL's JOIN.
Disclaimer: I am currently employed by Sumo Logic.
I have a rather long and complex paginated query. I'm trying to optimize it. In the worst case - first, I have to execute the data query in a one call to Neo4j, and then I have to execute pretty much the same query for the count. Of course, I do everything in one transaction. Anyway, I don't like the overall execution time, so I extracted the most common part for both - data and count queries and execute it on the first call. This common query returns the IDs of nodes, which I then pass as parameters to the rest of data and count queries. Now, everything works much faster. One thing I don't like is that a common query can sometimes return quite a large set of IDs.. it can be 20k..50k Long IDs.
So my question is - because I'm doing this in a one transaction - is there a way to preserve such Set of IDs somewhere in Neo4j between common query and data/count query calls and just refer them somehow in the subsequent data/count queries without moving between app JVM and Neo4j?
Also, am I crazy for doing this, or is this a good approach to optimize a complex paginated query?
Only with a custom procedure.
Otherwise you'd need to return them.
But usually it's uncommon to both provide counts (even google doesn't provide "real" counts) and data.
One way is to just stream the results with the reactive driver as long as the user scrolls.
Otherwise I would just query for pageSize+1 and return "more than pageSize results".
If you just stream the id's back (and don't collect them as an aggregation) you can start using the id's received already to issue your new queries (even in parallel).
I am using a "BatchInserter" to build a graph (in a single thread). I want to make sure nodes (and possibly relationships) are unique. My current solution is to check whether the node exists in the following manner:
String name = (String) nodeProperties.get(IndexKeys.CATEGORY_KEY);
if(index.get(IndexKeys.CATEGORY_KEY, name).size() > 0)
return index.get(IndexKeys.CATEGORY_KEY, name).getSingle();
Long nodeID = inserter.createNode( nodeProperties,categoryLabel );
index.add(nodeID, nodeProperties);
index.flush();
It seems to be working fine but as you can see it is IO expensive (flushing on every new addition - which i believe is a lucene "commit" command). This is slowing down my code considerably.
I am aware of put if absent and uniqueFactory. As documented:
By using put-if-absent functionality, entity uniqueness can be guaranteed using an index.
Here the index acts as the lock and will only lock the smallest part
needed to guaranteed uniqueness across threads and transactions. To
get the more high-level get-or-create functionality make use of
UniqueFactory
However, these are for transaction based interactions with the graph. What I would like to do is to ensure uniqueness of nodes and possibly relationships in a batch insertion semantics, that is faster than my current setup.
Any pointers would be much appreciated.
Thank you
You should investigate the MERGE keyword in cypher. I believe this will permit you to exploit your autoindexes without requiring you to use them yourself. More broadly, you might want to see if you can formulate your bulk load in a way that is conducive to piping large volumes of cypher queries through the neo4j-shell.
Finally, as general pointers and background, you should check out this information on bulk loading
When I encountered this problem, I just decided to go tyrant and force index values in my own. Can't you do the same? I mean, ensure uniqueness before you do the insertions?
START names = node(*),
target=node:node_auto_index(target_name="TARGET_1")
MATCH names
WHERE NOT names-[:contains]->()
AND HAS (names.age)
AND (names.qualification =~ ".*(?i)B.TECH.*$"
OR names.qualification =~ ".*(?i)B.E.*$")
CREATE UNIQUE (names)-[r:contains{type:"declared"}]->(target)
RETURN names.name,names,names.qualification
Iam consisting of nearly 1,80,000 names nodes, i had iterated the above process to create unique relationships above 100 times by changing the target. its taking too much amount of time.How can i resolve it..
i build the query with java and iterated.iam using neo4j 2.0.0.5 and java 1.7 .
I edited your cypher query because I think I understand it, but I can barely read the rest of your question. If you edit it with white spaces and punctuation it might be easier to understand what you are trying to do. Until then, here are some thoughts about your query being slow.
You bind all the nodes in the graph, that's typically pretty slow.
You bind all the nodes in the graph twice. First you bind universally in your start clause: names=node(*), and then you bind universally in your match clause: MATCH names, and only then you limit your pattern. I don't quite know what the Cypher engine makes of this (possibly it gets a migraine and goes off to make a pot of coffee). It's unnecessary, you can at least drop the names=node(*) from your start clause. Or drop the match clause, I suppose that could work too, since you don't really do anything there, and you will still need a start clause for as long as you use legacy indexing.
You are using Neo4j 2.x, but you use legacy indexing instead of labels, at least in this query. Without knowing your data and model it's hard to know what the difference would be for performance, but it would certainly make it much easier to write (and read) your queries. So, that's a different kind of slow. It's likely that if you had labels and label indices, the query performance would improve.
So, first try removing one of the universal bindings of nodes, then use the 2.x schema tools to structure your data. You should be able to write queries like
MATCH target:Target
WHERE target.target_name="TARGET_1"
WITH target
MATCH names:Name
WHERE NOT names-[:contains]->()
AND HAS (names.age)
AND (names.qualification =~ ".*(?i)B.TECH.*$"
OR names.qualification =~ ".*(?i)B.E.*$")
CREATE UNIQUE (names)-[r:contains{type:"declared"}]->(target)
RETURN names.name,names,names.qualification
I have no idea if such a query would be fast on your data, however. If you put the "Name" label on all your nodes, then MATCH names:Name will still bind all nodes in the database, so it'll probably still be slow.
P.S. The relationships you create have a TYPE called contains, and you give them a property called type with value declared. Maybe you have a good reason, but that's potentially very confusing.
Edit:
Reading through your question and my answer again I no longer think that I understand even your cypher query. (Why are you returning both the bound nodes and properties of those nodes?) Please consider posting sample data on console.neo4j.org and explain in more detail what your model looks like and what you are trying to do. Let me know if my answer meets your question at all or I'll consider removing it.
I am using the Neo4j .NET Client ExecuteGetCypherResults to run cypher. It expects everything to come back in a single column. I have simple class JobType which contains a list of JobSpecialties on it. In the database this is modeled as the Types having a relationship to the Specialties.
I need a cypher query that returns the results as such, in a single column. The related Specialties should be a child property of the Type node I would expect the query to look like this:
start s=node:node_auto_index(StartType='JobTypes')
match s-[:starts]->t, t-[:SubTypes]->ts
return {Id: t.Id, Name: t.Name, JobSpecialties: ts}
But this doesn't work. I can't figure out from the docs if this is even possible. If there is a better way to get the result back to the .Net client, I am open to suggestions.
start s=node:node_auto_index(StartType='JobTypes')
match s-[:SubTypes]->js
return s.Id, s.Name, js;
ExecuteGetCypherResults does support multiple columns, you just need to kick our deserializer into a different mode. This is an implementation detail generally hidden behind our higher level APIs, which is why this isn't obvious.
When you call new CypherQuery, pass CypherResultMode.Projection instead of CypherResultMode.Set.
I actually can't remember why we have this. Sometime, I'll need to dig through the lower levels and try and kill it. Pull requests welcomed. :)
As a preference though, we always prefer people to use the higher level APIs (but we recognise there are some limitations).
It sounds like the .Net client needs some updating for cypher. Cypher doesn't support building maps on the fly yet, although it is something that is in the feature request list already...
You can create an array with your results (but as of 1.9.M04, they need to be the same type to be merged into the array):
http://console.neo4j.org/r/xo7voi
I've actually submitted a pull request (through back channels, since it broke some unit tests) to fix that (so you can have multiple types in an array built on the fly), but I think there are some concerns whether merging of different types is a good idea.
https://github.com/wfreeman/neo4j/commit/ca457ace0df4732376833b8694e4affac4143244
Update: This will be fixed in 1.9.M05/1.9.GA. Now you can build an array with any type mixed:
http://console.neo4j.org/r/vm4f83