To clarify, let's assume that we have nodes representing people and the following relationships: "BIOLOGICAL_MOTHER" and "BIOLOGICAL_FATHER".
Then, for any person node, said node can only have one "BIOLOGICAL_MOTHER" and one "BIOLOGICAL_FATHER". How can we ensure that this is the case?
No. Neo4J currently only supports uniqueness constraints.
I believe several people are working on different schema constructs for neo4j, that would permit you to constrain graphs in any number of different ways. What it seems you're asking for boils down to a database constraint that if there is a relationship of type BIOLOGICAL_FATHER from one person to another, that the DB may not accept any creation of new relationships of that same type. In other words, relationship cardinality constraints, by relationship type.
At the moment, I think the best you can do is verify in your application code that such a relationship doesn't exist before creating it, but the DB won't do this checking for you.
The particular constraint you're looking for sounds easy enough, hopefully a neo4j dev will jump in here and say, "Oh, no worries, that's planned for release XYZ" - but I'm not sure about that.
More broadly, there are a number of issues with graphs that make constraints very tricky. In my personal graph domain, I'd like to make it impossible to create new relationships such that they would introduce cycles in the graph over a particular relationship type. (E.g. (a)-[:owns]->(b)-[:owns]->(a) is extremely undesirable for me). This would be a very costly constraint to actually enforce in the general case, since verifying whether a new relationship was OK could potentially involve traversing a huge graph.
Over the long run, it seems reasonable that neo4j might implement local constraints, but still shy away from anything that implied non-local constraint checking.
Steve,
In terms of Cypher, if I am given two names of people - say Sam and Dave, and wish to make Sam the father of Dave, but only if Dave doesn't yet have a father, I could do something like this:
MATCH (f {name : 'Sam'}), (s {name : 'Dave'})
WHERE NOT (s)<-[:FATHER]-()
CREATE (f)-[:FATHER]->(s)
If Dave already has a father the WHERE clause filters Dave out, which means no relationship will be created.
Grace and peace,
Jim
Related
So I've just worked through the tutorial and I'm unclear about a few things. The main one, however, is how do you decide when something is a relationship and when it should be a Node?
For example, in the Movies Database,there is a relationship showing who acted in which film. A property of that relationship is the Role. BUT, what if it's a series of films? The role may well be constant between films (say, Jack Ryan in The Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games etc.)
We may also want to have some kind of Character bio, which would obviously remain constant between movies. Worse, the actor may change from one movie to another (Alec Baldwin then Harrison Ford.) There are many others like this (James Bond, for example).
Even if the actor doesn't change (Main roles in Harry Potter) the character is constant. So, at what point would the Role become a node in its own right? When it does, can I have a 3-way relationship (Actor-Role-Movie)? Say I start of with it being a relationship and then, down the line, decide it should've been a node, is there a simple way to go through the database and convert it?
No there is no way to convert your datamodel. When you start your own Database first take time to find a fitting schema. There is no ideal way to create a schema and also there are many different models fitting to the same situation without being totally wrong.
My strategy is to put less information to the relationship itself. I only add properties that directly concern the relationship and store all the other data in the nodes. Also think of properties you could use for traversing the graph. For example you might need some flags or even different labels for relationships even they more or less are the same. The apoc.algo.aStar is only including relationshiptypes you want (you could exclude certain nodes by giving them a special relationshiptype). So keep that in mind that you take a look at procedures that you might use later.
Try to create the schema as simple as possible and find a way to stay consistent in terms of what things are nodes and what deserves a relationship. Dont mix it up.
Choose a design that makes sense for you! (device 1)-[cable]-(device 2) vs (device 1)-[has cable]-(cable)-[has cable]-(device 2) in this case I'd prefer the first because [has cable] wouldn't bring anymore information. Irrespective to what I wrote above I would have a lot of information in this [cable] relationship but it totally makes sense for me because I wouldnt want to search in a device node for cable information.
For your example giving the role a own node is also valid way. For example if you want to espacially query which actors had the same role in common I'll totally go for giving the role a extra node.
Summary:
Think of what you want to do with the data and choose the easiest model.
For recursive breakdown structures, is it better to model as ...
a. Group HAS Subgroup... or
b. Subgroup PART_OF Group ?? ....
Some neo4j tutorials imply model both (the parent_of and child_of example) while the neo4j subtype tutorials imply that either will work fine (generally going with PART-OF).
Based on experience with neo4j, is there a practical reason for choosing one or the other or use both?
[UPDATED]
Representing the same logical relationship with a pair of relationships (having different types) in opposite directions is a very bad idea and a waste of time and resources. Neo4j can traverse a single relationship just as easily from either of its nodes.
With respect to which direction to pick (since we do not want both), see this answer to a related question.
Revisiting Neo4j after a long absence. I have read a lot of articles but still find I have a few questions to get me going again....
Bidirectional relationships
I have a “connected to”-type scenario where 2 nodes are connected to each other. In fact, the idea is to model a type of flow. However, the flow in both directions is not always the same. I’m uncertain of the best method to use: 1 relationship with 2 properties or 2 distinct relationships?
The former feels like the comfortable choice but then doesn’t feel natural in terms of modelling the actual facts – for example: what to call the properties because FlowIn and FlowOut wouldn’t make sense when looked at from each nodes’ perspective. I also wonder about the performance of properties versus relationships in this case – these values will need to be updated.
Representing Time
Now I want to take a step further and represent the flow between nodes at specific times or, more accurately, between specific times. So between 2pm and 3pm the flow between #1 and #2 will be x.
How should this be done in an optimal way? Relationship per time frame per connection seems….verbose. Could a timeframe being represented as a node be of value?!
Are there any Maximum Flow samples with Cypher out there?
Particularly interested in push-relabel max flow problem solving.
Thank you for any advice to might have to offer.
While you have definitely given some thought to your problem the question is a little unclear. This seems to be a question about Graph Data Models. You would like to know how best to organize a model to represent a complex relationship. If you are trying to track the "flow" between two nodes then assign a weight property to a unidirected edge.
Bidirectional relationships should be carefully considered. Neo4j can process them just as fast as unidirectional relationships. A quote from the graphaware about using bidirectional relationships:
Relationships in Neo4j can be traversed in both directions with the same speed. Moreover, direction can be completely ignored. Therefore, there is no need to create two different relationships between nodes, if one implies the other.
I believe your problems can be alleviated by gaining a better understanding of Graph data models. Looking at a few different models and understanding the why will help more than understanding cypher syntax at this point. May I suggest reading this survey by 2 professors at the University of Chile titled "Survey of Graph Database Models." The "Hypernode" model on page 21 may be of particular interest to you since it sounds like you are trying to model a complex cyclic object. From page twenty one;
Hypernodes can be used to represent simple (flat) and complex objects (hierarchical, composite, and cyclic) as well as mappings and records. A key feature is its inherent ability to encapsulate information.
Hopefully that information helps you in your efforts to model a complex relationship.
We are working on a project trying to map a structure like Java code connections with Noe4J 2.1.5. We have succeeded in connecting Applications-Jars-Classes-Methods and can for example get a Cypher answer resulting in:
App1-->Jar1-->Class1-->Method1-->Method2-->Method3<--Class22<--Jar2<--App1
Now we would like to be able to get the condensed answer to what Jars that are connected like this, "hiding" the existing path above?
Jar1--Jar2
Is it possible with Cypher to get this result without creating a new Relationship like
Jar1-[:PATH_EXISTS]-Jar2
We can't find anything related collapsing/hiding paths in the manual nor here on stack overflow
Regards
Christofer
There's basically two ways of going about this.
The first is to explicitly create the new relationship, but I won't talk about this that much because it seems you've thought of that and rejected it. That method is easy, but more disk intensive (depending on the size of your graph)
The second is simply to query for the path when needed, with a variable length path like this:
MATCH (jar1 {myid: "something"})-[*]->(jar2 {myid: "somethingelse"})
RETURN jar2;
This will get you what you need, but it requires that this distant path be recomputed every time it's needed. So, it's easy, but it's compute intensive.
Now, more broadly what it sounds like you want is something like a graph inference engine. In the OWL/RDF world, people will create ontologies that describe different types of entities, and the relationships between them. One of the consequences of these relationships is that they can be transitive and can have implications on them. A classic example is that a person is an entity, and things like motherOf and fatherOf are relationships between. So if you have a path of fatherOf relationships between nodes, i.e. (A)-[:fatherOf]->(B)-[:fatherOf]->(C), the inference engine will return the "fact" that (A) and (C) are related by family. This would be a consequence of your ontological definition. That "fact" wouldn't actually be in the RDF store, it would simply be entailed by the facts.
In your case, you'd do something like writing an ontology that specified that all of the individual relationships you have in your graph are a specialization of some relationship type (like "related to"). You'd then ask the reasoner if a "related to" relationship exists between Jar1 and Jar2, and the answer would be yes because of your ontological definitions.
OK, so the bad news is that neo4j isn't RDF and doesn't do this. Also, doing this sort of thing is way harder than I'm making it sound; correct ontology modeling is an art unto itself, not unlike logic programming from the prolog world of the 1970s. But basically, that kind of inference is what it sounds like you're looking for.
What I think you might be able to hope for in some future release of neo4j is something akin to a database "view", or better schema support. I.e. it ought to be possible to specify that whenever a certain relationship pattern holds, some other relationship ought also be present.
I can't seem to find any discussion on this. I had been imagining a database that was schemaless and node based and heirarchical, and one day I decided it was too common sense to not exist, so I started searching around and neo4j is about 95% of what I imagined.
What I didn't imagine was the concept of relationships. I don't understand why they are necessary. They seem to add a ton of complexity to all topics centered around graph databases, but I don't quite understand what the benefit is. Relationships seem to be almost exactly like nodes, except more limited.
To explain what I'm thinking, I was imagining starting a company, so I create myself as my first nodes:
create (u:User { u.name:"mindreader"});
create (c:Company { c.name:"mindreader Corp"});
One day I get a customer, so I put his company into my db.
create (c:Company { c.name:"Customer Company"});
create (u:User { u.name:"Customer Employee1" });
create (u:User { u.name:"Customer Employee2"});
I decide to link users to their customers
match (u:User) where u.name =~ "Customer.*"
match (c:Company) where c.name =~ "Customer.*
create (u)-[:Employee]->(c);
match (u:User where name = "mindreader"
match (c:Company) where name =~ "mindreader.*"
create (u)-[:Employee]->(c);
Then I hire some people:
match (c:Company) where c.name =~ "mindreader.*"
create (u:User { name:"Employee1"})-[:Employee]->(c)
create (u:User { name:"Employee2"})-[:Employee]->(c);
One day hr says they need to know when I hired employees. Okay:
match (c:Company)<-[r:Employee]-(u:User)
where name =~ "mindreader.*" and u.name =~ "Employee.*"
set r.hiredate = '2013-01-01';
Then hr comes back and says hey, we need to know which person in the company recruited a new employee so that they can get a cash reward for it.
Well now what I need is for a relationship to point to a user but that isn't allowed (:Hired_By relationship between :Employee relationship and a User). We could have an extra relationship :Hired_By, but if the :Employee relationship is ever deleted, the hired_by will remain unless someone remembers to delete it.
What I could have done in neo4j was just have a
(u:User)-[:hiring_info]->(hire_info:HiringInfo)-[:hired_by]->(u:User)
In which case the relationships only confer minimal information, the name.
What I originally envisioned was that there would be nodes, and then each property of a node could be a datatype or it could be a pointer to another node. In my case, a user record would end up looking like:
User {
name: "Employee1"
hiring_info: {
hire_date: "2013-01-01"
hired_by: u:User # -> would point to a user
}
}
Essentially it is still a graph. Nodes point to each other. The name of the relationship is just a field in the origin node. To query it you would just go
match (u:User) where ... return u.name, u.hiring_info.hiring_date, u.hiring_info.hired_by.name
If you needed a one to many relationship of the same type, you would just have a collection of pointers to nodes. If you referenced a collection in return, you'd get essentially a join. If you delete hiring_info, it would delete the pointer. References to other nodes would not have to be a disorganized list at the toplevel of a node. Furthermore when I query each user I will know all of the info about a user without both querying for the user itself and also all of its relationships. I would know his name and the fact that he hired someone in the same query. From the database backend, I'm not sure much would change.
I see quite a few questions from people asking whether they should use nodes or relationships to model this or that, and occasionally people asking for a relationship between relationships. It feels like the XML problem where you are wondering if a pieces of information should be its own tag or just a property its parent tag.
The query engine goes to great pains to handle relationships, so there must be some huge advantage to having them, but I can't quite see it.
Different databases are for different things. You seem to be looking for a noSQL database.
This is an extremely wide topic area that you've reached into, so I'll give you the short of it. There's a spectrum of database schemas, each of which have different use cases.
NoSQL aka Non-relational Databases:
Every object is a single document. You can have references to other documents, but any additional traversal means you're making another query. Times when you don't have relationships between your data very often, and are usually just going to want to query once and have a large amount of flexibly-stored data as the document that is returnedNote: These are not "nodes". Node have a very specific definition and implies that there are edges.)
SQL aka Relational Databases:
This is table land, this is where foreign keys and one-to-many relationships come into play. Here you have strict schemas and very fast queries. This is honestly what you should use for your user example. Small amounts of data where the relationships between things are shallow (You don't have to follow a relationship more than 1-2 times to get to the relevant entry) are where these excel.
Graph Database:
Use this when relationships are key to what you're trying to do. The most common example of a graph is something like a social graph where you're connecting different users together and need to follow relationships for many steps. (Figure out if two people are connected within a depth for 4 for instance)
Relationships exist in graph databases because that is the entire concept of a graph database. It doesn't really fit your application, but to be fair you could just keep more in the node part of your database. In general the whole idea of a database is something that lets you query a LOT of data very quickly. Depending on the intrinsic structure of your data there are different ways that that makes sense. Hence the different kinds of databases.
In strongly connected graphs, Neo4j is 1000x faster on 1000x the data than a SQL database. NoSQL would probably never be able to perform in a strongly connected graph scenario.
Take a look at what we're building right now: http://vimeo.com/81206025
Update: In reaction to mindreader's comment, we added the related properties to the picture:
RDBM systems are tabular and put more information in the tables than the relationships. Graph databases put more information in relationships. In the end, you can accomplish much the same goals.
However, putting more information in relationships can make queries smaller and faster.
Here's an example:
Graph databases are also good at storing human-readable knowledge representations, being edge (relationship) centric. RDF takes it one step further were all information is stored as edges rather than nodes. This is ideal for working with predicate logic, propositional calculus, and triples.
Maybe the right answer is an object database.
Objectivity/DB, which now supports a full suite of graph database capabilities, allows you to design complex schema with one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one, and many-to-many reference attributes. It has the semantics to view objects as graph nodes and edges. An edge can be just the reference attribute from one node to another or an edge can exist as an edge object that sits between two nodes.
An edge object can have any number of attribute and can have references off to other objects, as shown in the diagram below.
Being able to "hang" complex objects off of an edge allows Objectivity/DB to support weighted queries where the edge-weight can be calculated using a user-defined weight calculator operator. The weight calculator operator can build the weight from a static attribute on the edge or build the weight by digging down through the objects connected to the edge. In the picture, above, we could create a edge-weight calculator that computes the sum of the CallDetail lengths connected to the Call edge.