I'm new to neo4j, and I'm building a social network. For the sake of this question, my graph consists of user and event nodes with relationship(s) between them.
A user may be invited, join, attend or host an event, and each is a subset of the one before it.
Is there any benefit to / should I create multiple relationships for each status/state, or one relationship with a property to store the current state?
Graph-type queries are more easily/efficiently done on relationship types than properties, from what I understand.
How about one relationship, but a different relationship type?
You can query on several types of relationships with pipes using Cypher (in case you have other relationships to the event that you don't want to pick up in queries).
Update--adding console example: http://console.neo4j.org/?id=woe684
Alternatively, you can just leave the old relationships there and not have to build the slightly more complicated queries, but that feels a bit wasteful for this use case.
When possible, choosing different relationship types over a single type qualified by properties can have a significant positive performance impact when querying the graph. The former approach is aways at least 2x faster than the latter. When data is in high-level cache and the graph is queried using native Java API, the first approach is more than 8x faster for single-hop traversals.
Source: http://graphaware.com/neo4j/2013/10/24/neo4j-qualifying-relationships.html
Related
Is it possible to "collapse" relationships in neo4j? I'm trying to graph relationships between people, and they can be related in multiple different ways - a shared course, jointly authored paper, RT or tweet mention. Right now I'm modeling people, courses, papers, and tweets all as nodes. But what I'm really interested in is modeling the person-person relationships that go through these intermediary nodes. Is it possible to graph the implicit relationship (person-course-person) explicit (person-person), while still keeping the course as a node? Something like this http://catalhoyuk.stanford.edu/network/teams/ - slide 2 and 3.
Any other data modeling suggestions welcome as well.
Yes, you can do it. The query
MATCH(a:Person)-->(:Course)<--(b:Person)
CREATE (a)-[:IMPLICIT_RELATIONSHIP]->(b)
will crate a relationship with type :IMPLICIT_RELATIONSHIP between all people that are related to the same course. But probably you don't need it since you can transverse from a to b and from b to a without this extra and not necessary relationship. Also if you want a virtual relationship at query time to use in a projection you can use the APOC procedure apoc.create.vRelationship.
The APOC procedures docs says:
Virtual Nodes and Relationships don’t exist in the graph, they are
only returned to the UI/user for representing a graph projection. They
can be visualized or processed otherwise. Please note that they have
negative id’s.
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.
I know that there are similar questions around on Stackoverflow but I don't feel they answer the following.
Graph Databases to my understanding store data following mostly this schema:
Table/Collection 1: store nodes with UID
Table/Collection 2: store relations referencing nodes via UID
This allows storing arbitrary types of graphs. Now as I understand triple stores store nothing but triples:
Triple/Collection 1: store triples (2 nodes, 1 relation)
Now I would see the following distinction regarding use cases:
Graph Databases: when you have known, static connections
Triple Stores: when you have loosely connected nodes and are often looking for new connections
I am confused by the fact that people do not seem to be discussing which one to use according to these criteria. Most article I find are talking about arguments like speed or compatibility. But is this not the most relevant point?
Put the other way round:
Imagine having a clearly connected, user defined graph. Why on earth would you want to store that as triples only, loosing all the info about connections? Or having to implement some custom solution storing IDs in the triple subject.
Imagine having loosely collected nodes that you want to query for unknown relations using SPARQL. Graph databases do support that. But for this they have to build another index I assume and would be slower?
EDIT:
I see that "loosing info about connections" is the wrong way to put it. If you do as shown in the accepted answer and insert several triples for 2 nodes + 1 relation then you keep all the info and specifically the info what exact nodes are connected.
The main difference between graph databases and triple stores is how they model the graph. In a triple store (or quad store), the data tends to be very atomic. What I mean is that the "nodes" in the graph tend to be primitive data types like string, integer, date, etc. Relationships link primitives together, and so the "unit of discourse" in a triple store is a triple, and not a node or a relationship, typically.
By contrast, other graph databases are often called "property stores" because nodes are data containers that correspond to objects in a domain. A node stands in for an object, and has properties; they act as rich data types specified by the graph modelers, more than just primitive data types. In these graph databases, nodes and relationships are the "unit of discourse".
Let's say I have a person named "Bob" who knows "Susan". In RDF, it would be something like this:
<http://example.org/person/1> :hasName "Bob".
<http://example.org/person/1> foaf:knows <http://example.org/person/2>.
<http://example.org/person/2> :hasName "Susan".
In a graph database like neo4j, it would be this:
(a:Person {name: "Bob"})-[:KNOWS]->(b:Person {name: "Susan"})
Notice that in RDF, it's 3 relationships but only one of those relationships actually expresses semantics between two entities. The other two relationships are just tracking properties of a single higher-level entity (the person). In neo4j, it's 1 relationship amongst two nodes, with each node having a property. In RDF you'll tend to identify things by URI, in neo4j it's a database object that gets a database ID automatically. That's what I mean about the difference between a more atomic/primitive store (triple stores) and a richer property graph.
RDF and triple stores are mostly built for the kinds of architectural challenges you'd run into with the semantic web. For example, XML namespacing is built in, on the architectural assumption that you'll be mixing and matching the use of many different vocabularies and namespaces. (That right there is a very "semantic web" assumption). So in SPARQL and RDF you'll see typically at least the use of xsd, rdf, and rdfs namespaces concurrently, and probably also owl, skos, and many others. SPARQL and RDF/RDFS also have many hooks and features that are there explicitly to make things like ontology inference easier. You'll tend to identify things with URIs as a way of "namespacing your identifiers" but also because some people may want to de-reference the URI...again the assumption here is a wide data sharing arrangement between many parties.
Property stores by contrast are keyed towards different use cases, like flexible modeling of data within one model/namespace, mappings between objects and graphs for persistence of enterprise applications, rapid evolvability, and so on. You'll tend to identify things with your own scheme (or an internal database ID). An auto-incrementing integer may not be best form of ID for any random consumer on the web, (and they certainly can't be de-referenced like URLs) but they might not be your first thought for a company internal application.
So which is better? The more atomic triple store format, or a rich property graph? Do you need to mix and match many different vocabularies in one query or data model? Do you need to create an OWL ontology or do inference? Do you need to serialize a bunch of java objects in memory to a database? Do you need to do fast traversal of long paths? Those types of questions would guide your selection.
Graphs are graphs, both of them do graphs, and so I don't think there's much difference in terms of what they can represent, or how you go about thinking about a problem in "graph terms". The differences boil down to the architecture underneath of the hood, and what sorts of use cases you think you'll need. I won't tell you one is better than the other, but choose wisely.
(in reply to the comments on this answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/30167732 )
When an owl:inverseOf production rule is defined, the inverse property triple is inferred by the reasoner either when adding or updating the store, or when selecting from the store. This is a "materialized relation"
Schema.org - an RDFS vocabulary - defines, for example, https://schema.org/isPartOf as the inverse property of hasPart. If both are specified, it's not necessary to run another graph pattern query to traverse a directed relation in the other direction.
(:book1 schema:hasPart ?o)
(?o schema:isPartOf :book1)
(?s schema:hasPart :chapter2)
It's certainly possible to use RDFS and OWL to describe schema for and within neo4j property graphs; but there's no reasoner to e.g. infer inverse properties or do schema validation.
Is there any RDF graph that neo4j cannot store? RDF has datatypes and languages for objects: you'd need to reify properties where datatypes and/or languages are specified (and you'd be re-implementing well-defined semantics)
Can every neo4j graph be represented with RDF? Yes.
RDF is a representation for graphs for which there are very many store implementations that are optimized for various use cases like insert and query performance.
Comparing neo4j to a particular triplestore (with reasoning support) might be a more useful comparison given that all neo4j graphs can be expressed as RDF.
Our company is evaluating Neo4J as the database of choice for our social network. Our main requirement is a high performance social activity stream (reads eclipse writes). In modeling our data we independently designed what you call the Graphity model, which scales well, but is limited by Neo's max relationship types (~32,700).
Is there a way to increase the # of relationship types in order to use Graphity at scale?
http://docs.neo4j.org/chunked/milestone/cypher-cookbook-graphity.html
http://docs.neo4j.org/chunked/milestone/cypher-cookbook-newsfeed.html
If the number of relationships types is a concern, keep in mind that Neo4j supports properties on relationships.
So instead of MATCH p=me-[:jane_knows*]->friend .... you chould have something modeled like:
MATCH me-[jk:who_knows]->friend WHERE jk.who = 'jane'
That could effectively make all of you x_knows relationships into one relationship type with a property. I am not sure if that would yield the same semantic or performance benefits of your use-case, but it is a possible solution to your concern.