Following the question I asked: Build a dynamic query using neo4j client
I got an answer about how can I return value dynamically using string only.
When I'm trying to use the syntax to return multi values from the query it failed,
I tried the following query:
var resQuery2 = WebApiConfig.GraphClient.Cypher
.Match("(movie:Movie {title:{title}})")
.OptionalMatch("(movie)<-[r]-(person:Person)")
.WithParam("title", title)
.Return(() => Return.As<string>("movie, collect([person.name, head(split(lower(type(r)), '_')), r.roles])"));
I'm getting the following error:
The deserializer is running in single column mode, but the response
included multiple columns which indicates a projection instead. If
using the fluent Cypher interface, use the overload of Return that
takes a lambda or object instead of single string. (The overload with
a single string is for an identity, not raw query text: we can't map
the columns back out if you just supply raw query text.)
Is it possible to return multiple nodes using only strings?
We can't get an output like in the question you asked previously - this is due to the fact that you are asking for a Node (the movie) and a Collection of strings (the collect) and they have no common properties, or even styles of property.
Firstly, let's look at the painful way to do this:
var q = gc.Cypher
.Match("(movie:Movie)")
.OptionalMatch("(movie)<-[r]-(person:Person)")
.Return(() => Return.As<string>("{movie:movie, roles:collect([person.name, head(split(lower(type(r)), '_')), r.roles])}"));
var results = q.Results;
Here we take the query items (movie, r, person) and create a type with them the {} around the results, and cast that to a string.
This will give you a horrible string with the Node data around the movie and then a collection of the roles:
foreach (var m in results)
{
//This is going to be painful to navigate/use
dynamic d = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<dynamic>(m);
Console.WriteLine(d.movie);
Console.WriteLine(d.roles);
}
You'd be a lot better off doing something like:
var q = gc.Cypher
.Match("(movie:Movie)")
.OptionalMatch("(movie)<-[r]-(person:Person)")
.Return(() => new
{
Movie = Return.As<Node<string>>("movie"),
Roles = Return.As<IEnumerable<string>>("collect([person.name, head(split(lower(type(r)), '_')), r.roles])")
});
var res = q.Results;
You could either JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<dynamic>() the Movie node, at your leisure, or write a strongly typed class.
In terms of a 'dynamic' object, I don't know how you were wanting to interact with the collect part of the return statement, if this doesn't help, you might need to update the question to show a usage expectation.
Let's say I have a PairRDD, students (id, name). I would like to only keep rows where id is in another RDD, activeStudents (id).
The solution I have is to create a PairDD from activeStudents, (id, id), and the do a join with students.
Is there a more elegant way of doing this?
Thats a pretty good solution to start with. If active students is small enough you could collect the ids as a map and then filter with the id presence (this avoids having to a do a shuffle).
Much like you thought, you can do an outer join if both RDDs contain keys and values.
val students: RDD[(Long, String)]
val activeStudents: RDD[Long]
val activeMap: RDD[(Long, Unit)] = activeStudents.map(_ -> ())
val activeWithName: RDD[(Long, String)] =
students.leftOuterJoin(activeMap).flatMapValues {
case (name, Some(())) => Some(name)
case (name, None) => None
}
If you don't have to join those two data sets then you should definitely avoid it.
I had a similar problem recently and I successfully solved it using a broadcasted Set, which I used in UDF to check whether each RDD row (rather value from one of its columns) is in that Set. That UDF is than used as the basis for the filter transformation.
More here: whats-the-most-efficient-way-to-filter-a-dataframe.
Hope this helps. Ask if it's not clear.
I have a many-to-many relationship:
class Project {
Set<PrincipalInvestigator> pis
:
static hasMany = [ pis:PrincipalInvestigator ]
}
class PrincipalInvestigator {
String name
:
}
I want a query that returns a unique and sorted list of PIs that belong to a pre-defined list of projects.
A naive approach is to iterate thru the projects, and iterate thru their list of PIs, while removing the dupes. The code to do this is trivial, but it is slow.
So far, the best working solution I could come up with is:
def pi_ids = Project.createCriteria().list{ // find unique list of PI IDs
// project filters here, not relevant to the question
createAlias('pis', 'aka_pis', JoinType.LEFT_OUTER_JOIN)
isNotNull('aka_pis.id')
projections {
distinct('aka_pis.id')
}
}
def pi_list = PrincipalInvestigator.createCriteria().list{ // get PIs from list of IDs
inList('id', pi_ids)
order('name', 'asc')
}
My solution is one order of magnitude faster, but it's still 2 distinct queries. Is there a way to get the same result in a single query?
Using executeQuery makes queries as this alot easier. Something along the following should work:
PrincipalInvestigator.executeQuery("select distinct p.pis from Project p where p.id in :projectIds",
[projectIds: [1,2,3]])
The solution to my problem is this HQL:
PrincipalInvestigator.executeQuery(
"select distinct pi from Project p inner join p.pis as pi where p.id in :projectIds order by pi.name",
[projectIds:[1,2,3]])
This solution allows for sorting of the distinct results and the inner join trims all the null instances. Thanks to cfrick for putting me on the right track.
I want to replace the value of the 'Amount' key in a map (literal) with the sum of the existing 'Amount' value plus the new 'Amount' value such where both the 'type' and 'Price' match. The structure I have so far is:
WITH [{type:1, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:2, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:3, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]}] as ExistingOrders,
{type:2, Order:{Price:11,Amount:50}} as NewOrder
(I'm trying to get it to:)
RETURN [{type:1, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:2, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:250},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:3, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]}] as CombinedOrders
If there is no existing NewOrder.type and NewOrder.Price then it should obviously insert the new record rather than add it together.
Sorry, this is possibly really straight forward, but I'm not very good at this yet.
thanks
Edit:
I should add, that I have been able to get this working for a simpler map structure as such:
WITH [{type:1, Amount:100},{type:2, Amount:200},{type:3, Amount:300}] as ExistingOrders,
{type:2, Amount:50} as NewValue
RETURN reduce(map=filter(p in ExistingOrders where not p.type=NewValue.type),x in [(filter(p2 in ExistingOrders where p2.type=NewValue.type)[0])]|CASE x WHEN null THEN NewValue ELSE {type:x.type,Amount:x.Amount+NewValue.Amount} END+map) as CombinedOrders
But I'm struggling I think because of the Orders[array] in my first example.
I believe you are just trying to update the value of the appropriate Amount in ExistingOrders.
The following query is legal Cypher, and should normally work:
WITH ExistingOrders, NewOrder, [x IN ExistingOrders WHERE x.type = NewOrder.type | x.Orders] AS eo
FOREACH (y IN eo |
SET y.Amount = y.Amount + CASE WHEN y.Price = NewOrder.Order.Price THEN NewOrder.Order.Amount ELSE 0 END
)
However, the above query produces a (somewhat) funny ThisShouldNotHappenError error with the message:
Developer: Stefan claims that: This should be a node or a relationship
What the message is trying to say (in obtuse fashion) is that you are not using the neo4j DB in the right way. Your properties are way too complicated, and should be separated out into nodes and relationships.
So, I will a proposed data model that does just that. Here is how you can create nodes and relationships that represent the same data as ExistingOrders:
CREATE (t1:Type {id:1}), (t2:Type {id:2}), (t3:Type {id:3}),
(t1)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:10,Amount:100}),
(t1)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:11,Amount:200}),
(t1)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:12,Amount:300}),
(t2)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:10,Amount:100}),
(t2)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:11,Amount:200}),
(t2)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:12,Amount:300}),
(t3)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:10,Amount:100}),
(t3)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:11,Amount:200}),
(t3)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(:Order {Price:12,Amount:300});
And here is a query that will update the correct Amount:
WITH {type:2, Order:{Price:11,Amount:50}} as NewOrder
MATCH (t:Type)-[:HAS_ORDER]->(o:Order)
WHERE t.id = NewOrder.type AND o.Price = NewOrder.Order.Price
SET o.Amount = o.Amount + NewOrder.Order.Amount
RETURN t.id, o.Price, o.Amount;
There's two parts to your question - one with a simple answer, and a second part that doesn't make sense. Let me take the simple one first!
As far as I can tell, it seems you're asking how to concatenate a new map on to a collection of maps. So, how to add a new item in an array. Just use + like this simple example:
return [{item:1}, {item:2}] + [{item:3}];
Note that the single item we're adding at the end isn't a map, but a collection with only one item.
So for your query:
RETURN [
{type:1, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},
{Price:11,Amount:200},
{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:2, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},
{Price:11,Amount:**250**},
{Price:12,Amount:300}]}]
+
[{type:3, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},
{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]}]
as **CombinedOrders**
Should do the trick.
Or you could maybe do it a bit cleaner, like this:
WITH [{type:1, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:2, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},
{type:3, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]}] as ExistingOrders,
{type:2, Order:{Price:11,Amount:50}} as NewOrder
RETURN ExistingOrders + [NewOrder];
OK now for the part that doesn't make sense. In your example, it looks like you want to modify the map inside of the collection. But you have two {type:2} maps in there, and you're looking to merge them into something with one resulting {type:3} map in the output that you're asking for. If you need to deconflict map entries and change what the map entry ought to be, it might be that cypher isn't your best choice for that kind of query.
I figured it out:
WITH [{type:1, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},Price:12,Amount:300}]},{type:2, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]},{type:3, Orders:[{Price:10,Amount:100},{Price:11,Amount:200},{Price:12,Amount:300}]}] as ExistingOrders,{type:2, Orders:[{Price:11,Amount:50}]} as NewOrder
RETURN
reduce(map=filter(p in ExistingOrders where not p.type=NewOrder.type),
x in [(filter(p2 in ExistingOrders where p2.type=NewOrder.type)[0])]|
CASE x
WHEN null THEN NewOrder
ELSE {type:x.type, Orders:[
reduce(map2=filter(p3 in x.Orders where not (p3.Price=(NewOrder.Orders[0]).Price)),
x2 in [filter(p4 in x.Orders where p4.Price=(NewOrder.Orders[0]).Price)[0]]|
CASE x2
WHEN null THEN NewOrder.Orders[0]
ELSE {Price:x2.Price, Amount:x2.Amount+(NewOrder.Orders[0]).Amount}
END+map2 )]} END+map) as CombinedOrders
...using nested Reduce functions.
So, to start with it combines a list of orders without matching type, with a list of those orders (actually, just one) with a matching type. For those latter ExistingOrders (with type that matches the NewOrder) it does a similar thing with Price in the nested reduce function and combines non-matching Prices with matching Prices, adding the Amount in the latter case.
I want to create a search function on my website, and I don't want to use a plugin for this thing, because it's very simple, but I can't solve this problem:
I give the keyword to the model which creates a query, but I couldn't figure out how to put joker characters in this query.
I'm using Propel
Dennis
The filterByXXX() query functions will use LIKE when your query contains wildcards:
$books = BookQuery::create()
->filterByTitle('War%')
->find();
// example Query generated for a MySQL database
$query = 'SELECT book.* from `book` WHERE book.TITLE LIKE :p1'; // :p1 => 'War%'
Remember, the wildcards you can use in SQL are _ for exactly one and % for zero or more characters. So not ? or *.