I have a query below and need to combine the 2nd and 3rd .compare condition with 'AND' operator
var query = ii.join(InvoiceItem#PolicyPeriod)
.compare(PolicyPeriod#Plan, Relop.NotEquals, xyzPlan)
.compareIn(PolicyPeriod#ProdType, {Prod.TC_FREE, Prod.TC_UNIQ})
.compareIn(PolicyPeriod#Elig,{OffElig.TC_Yes})
Second compareIn statement should be like below in SQL but do not know how to combine two variables in one compare with AND operator.
if ( prodtype in ('FREE','UNIQ') and Elig = 'YES')
Any Advice!!
You can use .and() method from the QueryAPI:
var query = ii.join(InvoiceItem#PolicyPeriod)
.compare(PolicyPeriod#Plan, Relop.NotEquals, xyzPlan)
.and(\and1 -> {
and1.compareIn(PolicyPeriod#ProdType, {Prod.TC_FREE, Prod.TC_UNIQ})
and1.compareIn(PolicyPeriod#Elig, {OffElig.TC_Yes})
})
In the same manner, you can use .or() method or even combine and() and or() in one statement.
The following query returns a user map with an "injected" property called "questions", it works as expected when g.V().has() returns a single user, but not when returns multiple users:
return g.V().has("user", "userId", 1)
.union(
__.valueMap().by(__.unfold()),
__.project('questions').by(
__.outE('response').valueMap().by(__.unfold()).fold()
)
)
.unfold()
.group()
.by(__.select(column.keys))
.by(__.select(column.values));
It works, but when I change the first line to return multiple users:
g.V().hasLabel("user").union(....
I finish the query calling .toList() so I was expecting to get a list of all the users in the same way it works with a single user but instead I still get a single user.
How can I get my query to work for both, multiple users or a single user?
When using Gremlin, you have to think in terms of a stream. The stream contains traversers which travel through the steps you've written. In your case, with your initial test of:
g.V().has("user", "userId", 1)
.union(
__.valueMap().by(__.unfold()),
__.project('questions').by(
__.outE('response').valueMap().by(__.unfold()).fold()
)
)
.unfold()
.group()
.by(__.select(column.keys))
.by(__.select(column.values))
you have one traverser (i.e. V().has("user", "userId", 1) produces one user) that flows to the union() and is split so that it goes to both valueMap() and project() both producing Map instances. You now have two traversers which are unfolded to a stream and grouped together to one final Map traverser.
So with that in mind what changes when you do hasLabel("user")? Well, you now have more than one starting traverser which means you will produce two traversers for each of those users when you get to union(). They will each be flatted to stream by unfold() and then they will just overwrite one another (because they have the same keys) to produce one final Map.
You really want to execute your union() and follow on operations once per initial "user" vertex traverser. You can tell Gremlin to do that with map():
g.V().has("user", "userId", 1)
.map(
.union(
__.valueMap().by(__.unfold()),
__.project('questions').by(
__.outE('response').valueMap().by(__.unfold()).fold()
)
)
.unfold()
.group()
.by(__.select(column.keys))
.by(__.select(column.values))
)
Finally, you can simplify your final by() modulators as:
g.V().has("user", "userId", 1)
.map(
.union(
__.valueMap().by(__.unfold()),
__.project('questions').by(
__.outE('response').valueMap().by(__.unfold()).fold()
)
)
.unfold()
.group()
.by(keys)
.by(values)
)
I am working on julia with the Metagraphs.jl library.
In order to conduct an optimization problem, I would like to get the set/list of edges in the graph that point to a special set of vertices having 2 particular properties in common.
My first guess was to first get the set/list of vertices. But I am facing a first issue which is that the filter_vertices function doesn't seem to accept to apply a filter on more than one property.
Here is below an example of what I would like to do:
g = DiGraph(5)
mg = MetaDiGraph(g, 1.0)
add_vertex!(mg)
add_edge!(mg,1,2)
add_edge!(mg,1,3)
add_edge!(mg,1,4)
add_edge!(mg,2,5)
add_edge!(mg,3,5)
add_edge!(mg,5,6)
add_edge!(mg,4,6)
set_props!(mg,3,Dict(:prop1=>1,:prop2=>2))
set_props!(mg,1,Dict(:prop1=>1,:prop2=>0))
set_props!(mg,2,Dict(:prop1=>1,:prop2=>0))
set_props!(mg,4,Dict(:prop1=>0,:prop2=>2))
set_props!(mg,5,Dict(:prop1=>0,:prop2=>2))
set_props!(mg,6,Dict(:prop1=>0,:prop2=>0))
col=collect(filter_vertices(mg,:prop1,1,:prop2,2))
And I want col to find vertex 3 and no others.
But the filter_vertices would only admit one property at a time and then it makes it more costly to do a loop with 2 filters and then try to compare in order to sort a list with the vertices that have both properties.
Considering the size of my graph I would like to avoid defining this set with multiple and costly loops. Would any one of you have an idea of how to solve this issue in an easy and soft way?
I ended up making this to answer my own question:
fil3=Array{Int64,1}()
fil1=filter_vertices(mg,:prop1,1)
for f in fil1
if get_prop(mg,f,:prop2)==2
push!(fil3,f)
end
end
println(fil3)
But tell me if you get anything more interesting
Thanks for your help!
Please provide a minimal working example in a way we can simply copy and paste, and start right away. Please also indicate where the problem occurs in the code. Below is an example for your scenario:
Pkg.add("MetaGraphs")
using LightGraphs, MetaGraphs
g = DiGraph(5)
mg = MetaDiGraph(g, 1.0)
add_vertex!(mg)
add_edge!(mg,1,2)
add_edge!(mg,1,3)
add_edge!(mg,1,4)
add_edge!(mg,2,5)
add_edge!(mg,3,5)
add_edge!(mg,5,6)
add_edge!(mg,4,6)
set_props!(mg,3,Dict(:prop1=>1,:prop2=>2))
set_props!(mg,1,Dict(:prop1=>1,:prop2=>0))
set_props!(mg,2,Dict(:prop1=>1,:prop2=>0))
set_props!(mg,4,Dict(:prop1=>0,:prop2=>2))
set_props!(mg,5,Dict(:prop1=>0,:prop2=>2))
set_props!(mg,6,Dict(:prop1=>0,:prop2=>0))
function my_vertex_filter(g::AbstractMetaGraph, v::Integer, prop1, prop2)
return has_prop(g, v, :prop1) && get_prop(g, v, :prop1) == prop1 &&
has_prop(g, v, :prop2) && get_prop(g, v, :prop2) == prop2
end
prop1 = 1
prop2 = 2
col = collect(filter_vertices(mg, (g,v)->my_vertex_filter(g,v,prop1,prop2)))
# returns Int[3]
Please check ?filter_vertices --- it gives you a hint on what/how to write to define your custom filter.
EDIT. For filtering the edges, you can have a look at ?filter_edges to see what you need to achieve the edge filtering. Append the below code excerpt to the solution above to get your results:
function my_edge_filter(g, e, prop1, prop2)
v = dst(e) # get the edge's destination vertex
return my_vertex_filter(g, v, prop1, prop2)
end
myedges = collect(filter_edges(mg, (g,e)->my_edge_filter(g,e,prop1,prop2)))
# returns [Edge 1 => 3]
I found this solution:
function filter_function1(g,prop1,prop2)
fil1=filter_vertices(g,:prop1,prop1)
fil2=filter_vertices(g,:prop2,prop2)
filter=intersect(fil1,fil2)
return filter
end
This seems to work and is quite easy to implement.
Just I don't know if the filter_vertices function is taking a lot of computational power.
Otherwise a simple loop like this seems to also work:
function filter_function2(g,prop1,prop2)
filter=Set{Int64}()
fil1=filter_vertices(g,:prop1,prop1)
for f in fil1
if get_prop(g,f,:prop2)==prop2
push!(filter,f)
end
end
return filter
end
I am open to any other answers if you have some more elegant ones.
I am new to graph databases and OrientDB, so I appreciate your patience.
I have the following SQL query to produce an expanded set of results for the shortest path between two vertices (I am using the GratefulDeadConcerts database):
select expand(sp) from (select shortestPath(#9:2,#9:15,'BOTH') as sp)
For whatever reason, using expand without aliasing produces no results, but that isn't really an issue.
What I want is not the shortest path, but a collection of potential paths and branches.
I have tried playing with travesedVertex:
SELECT traversedVertex(-1) FROM ( TRAVERSE out() FROM #9:2 WHILE $depth <= 10 )
But I don't know how to set the destination, or (honestly) how to interpret the results I get.
EDIT
If there are multiple ways to get from A to B, I want each of those paths returned as a set, something like:
{
paths: [
[#9:2, #4:16, #8:7, #9:15],
[#9:2, #4:2, #16:5, #11:3, #9:15],
[#9:2, #4:4, #11:6, #9:15]
]
}
Thank you for your help.
First, $path is the string representation of the current path.
Second, you can filter on the destination columns on the where clause of the outer query. Try this :
SELECT
$path
FROM
( TRAVERSE
out()
FROM
#9:2
WHILE
$depth <= 10 )
WHERE
#rid = #9:15
I get the following output :
Is this what you are looking for ?
If I don't add the where clause, I get this output :
I was following this article:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa902637%28v=sql.80%29.aspx
and my query for distinct count looks like this:
Count(CrossJoin({[Measures].[Submission Count]}, [Submission].[PK Submission].Members), ExcludeEmpty)
it returns always 1 more than it should (for example it returns 27 instead of 26).
In the same article there is this query (which is suppose to solve this problem):
Count(CrossJoin( {[Sales]},
Descendants([Customers].CurrentMember, [Customer Names])),
ExcludeEmpty)
But I can't get it to work. I've tried these two but second one always returns 1 or 0 while the first one doesn't work (error: I have to explicitly define a level):
Count(CrossJoin( {[Measures].[Submission Count]},
Descendants([Submission].CurrentMember, [Submission].[PK Submission])),
ExcludeEmpty)
Count(CrossJoin( {[Measures].[Submission Count]},
Descendants([Submission].[PK Submission].CurrentMember, [Submission].[PK Submission])),
ExcludeEmpty)
Any idea what am I doing wrong?
Thanks!
The reason the first query returns "1 more than it should" is because the [Submission].[PK Submission].Members tuple set also includes the All member.
If you refer to the [PK Submission] level instead of all the members of the [PK Submission] hierarchy, it doesn't include the All member.
So, the following returns what you're expecting:
Count( CrossJoin( { [Measures].[Submission Count] }
, { [Submission].[PK Submission].[PK Submission] })
, ExcludeEmpty)