I have a requirement of identifying a pool/set of nodes in the Flow on basis of their assigned role, So that the transactions can be sent to all nodes of a particular role/type.
For example:
A node (Type 1)
B node (Type 1)
C node (Type 2)
D node (Type 2)
Than, if I pass Type 2 in the flow, than I should be able to get the List of Parties/Node with that Type (i.e. C,D).
Is it possible? If yes, how? and where can I define the nodes type, maybe as some suffix in node name?
One possible hacky way I have in mind is, set prefix in every node and
then get List of nodes, extract name and identify according to it. But
it will be required in every flow initiation.
Thanks for any help.
There is no better solution to serve your purpose with the fewer overheads.
If you are expecting the no. of nodes and roles to be changed dynamically, a proper way would be to retrieves the roles (whether using an oracle or not) and cache it.
Then write a separate flow to trigger updates it.
If not, you can just hardcode it in the config file.
Related
We are trying to implement Customer oriented details in Graphdb, were with a single query we can fetch the details of a customer such as his address,phone,email etc. We have build it using had address, has email edges..
g.addV('member').property('id','CU10611972').property('CustomerId', 'CU10611972').property('TIN', 'xxxx').property('EntityType', 'Person').property('pk', 'pk')
g.addV('email').property('id','CU10611972E').property('pk', 'pk')
g.addV('primary').property('id','CU10611972EP').property('EmailPreference','Primary').property('EmailType', 'Home').property('EmailAddress', 'SNEHA#GMAIL.COM').property('pk', 'pk')
g.V('CU10611972').addE('has Email').to(g.V('CU10611972E'))
g.V('CU10611972E').addE('has Primary Email').to(g.V('CU10611972EP')
This is how we have build email relation to the customer.. Similarly we have relations with Address and Phone. So right now we are using this command to fetch the json related to this customer for email,
g.V('CU10611972').out('has Email').out('has Primary Email')
And for complete Customer details we are using union for each Vertex, Phone,Emaiul and address..
Could you please suggest if there is an efficient way to query this detail?
This comes down really to two things.
General graph data modelling
Things the graph DB you are using does and does not support.
With Gremlin there are a few ways to model this data for a single vertex.
If the database supports it, have a list of names like ['home','mobile'] and use metaproperties to attach a phone number to each.
A lot of the Gremlin implementations I am aware of have chosen not to support meta properties. In these cases you have a couple of options.
(a) Have a property for 'Home' and another for 'Mobile'. If either is not known you could either not create that property or give it a value such as "unknown"
(b) Use prefixed strings such as ["Home:123456789","Mobile:123456789] and store them in a set or list (multi properties) and access them in Gremlin using the startingWith predicate. Such as g.V(id).properties('phone').hasValue(startingWith('Mobile')).value()
I want to add property constraint on a specific vertex label to disallow null values or insertion of a vertex without specific properties
I added the name property to the person vertex as below, so the person will not take other properties except name but I need to add constraint on the value so it can not be null
mgmt = graph.openManagement()
person = mgmt.makeVertexLabel('person').make()
name = mgmt.makePropertyKey('name').dataType(String.class).cardinality(Cardinality.SET).make()
mgmt.addProperties(person, name)
mgmt.commit()
The Problem is :
A vertex with label person requires existence of a name property always. Or this vertex should not be created .
Is this achievable in janusgraph?
It is currently not possible to enforce the presence of certain property keys for certain vertex or edge labels in JanusGraph. However, this would be a good addition for the schema constraints that were introduced in JanusGraph 0.3.0. So, feel free to create an issue with JanusGraph for this feature request.
Until something like this is implemented in JanusGraph, you probably have to implement a logic to enforce this in your application that inserts the data.
If you for some reason cannot or don't want to implement this in your application (e.g. because you don't control all applications that insert data in your graph), then you could also implement your own TinkerPop TraversalStrategy that checks every addV step to ensure that the property is also added. These strategies are evaluated for all traversals and can change (e.g. as an optimization) the steps of the traversal or even throw an exception if the traversal is not legal which would be the correct behaviour in your case. JanusGraph itself would probably also implement a strategy to add these additional schema constraints.
I have a data model like this:
Person node
Email node
OWNS relationship
LISTS relationship
KNOWS relationship
each Person can OWN one Email and LISTS multiple Emails (like a contact list, 200 contacts is assumed per Person).
The query I am trying to perform is finding all the Persons that OWN an Email that a Contact LISTS and create a KNOWS relationship between them.
MATCH (n:Person {uid:'123'}) -[r1:LISTS]-> (m:Email) <-[r2:OWNS]- (l:Person)
CREATE UNIQUE (n)-[:KNOWS]->[l]
The counts of my current database is as follows:
Number of Person nodes: 10948
Number of Email nodes: 1951481
Number of OWNS rels: 21882
Number of LISTS rels: 4376340 (Each Person has 200 unique LISTS rels)
Now my problem is that running the said query on this current database takes something between 4.3 to 4.8 seconds which is unacceptable for my need. I wanted to know if this is normal timing considering my data model or am I doing something wrong with the query (or even model).
Any help would be much appreciated. Also if this is normal for Neo4j please feel free to suggest other graph databases that can handle this kind of model better.
Thank you very much in advance
UPDATE:
My query is: profile match (n: {uid: '4692'}) -[:LISTS]-> (:Email) <-[:OWNS]- (l) create unique (n)-[r:KNOWS]->(l)
The PROFILE command on my query returns this:
Cypher version: CYPHER 2.2, planner: RULE. 3919222 total db hits in 2713 ms.
Yes, 4.5 seconds to match one person from index along with its <=100 listed email addresses and merging a relationship from user to the single owner of each email, is slow.
The first thing is to make sure you have an index for uid property on nodes with :Person label. Check your indices with SCHEMA command and if missing create such an index with CREATE INDEX ON :Person(uid).
Secondly, CREATE UNIQUE may or may not do the work fine, but you will want to use MERGE instead. CREATE UNIQUE is deprecated and though they are sometimes equivalent, the operation you want performed should be expressed with MERGE.
Thirdly, to find out why the query is slow you can profile it:
PROFILE
MATCH (n:Person {uid:'123'})-[:LISTS]->(m:Email)<-[:OWNS]-(l:Person)
MERGE (n)-[:KNOWS]->[l]
See 1, 2 for details. You may also want to profile your query while forcing the use of one or other of the cost and rule based query planners to compare their plans.
CYPHER planner=cost
PROFILE
MATCH (n:Person {uid:'123'})-[:LISTS]->(m:Email)<-[:OWNS]-(l:Person)
MERGE (n)-[:KNOWS]->[l]
With these you can hopefully find and correct the problem, or update your question with the information to help others help you find it.
I have two fields: Supervisor and agent in a new content type. The list of agents depends on the supervisor selected. How can I create such a dependency i.e. each time a different supervisor is selected from a list a new list of agents is set?
Do I need to set up the supervisor and the agents each as nodes and then use entity reference?
How can I set up the dependency in the content type?
Cannot ask for clarification since I'm new here but here goes
Taxonomy terms can be a solution to the problem depending on the amount of information Supervisor and agent holds. If they hold information like phonenumbers, adresses, names etc. then they need a content type. If these are in fact references to users in the system then you need to use those users. If it's just for categorization, taxonomy terms will work just fine.
Set up the Supervisor as the parent term and the agents as children. Then use a widget like this one to handle the input: https://drupal.org/project/term_reference_tree
Afterwards you can retrieve and show data based on which term/agent is relevant.
I need to create a fairly complex rule in Drupal - I am willing to use either code or the interface to do so.
I am more familiar with the interface, however, as opposed to the Rules API.
Anyway, the rule will be as follows:
It will happen based on a form submission from entityforms (which is one entity). It will take the checkbox value of a field (not just the true or false, but rather the value submitted when a value is true or false). It will convert this number to an integer.
At this point things get interesting - I want to create a new entity of registrations (a different entity), which as far as I can tell, means I'll have to bring a registration into scope. I also need to bring node (and not just node: type and other data selectors, but specifically node) into scope, because the next step requires it.
So at this point, I should have three entities loaded into scope:
entityforms
registration
node
I believe the best way to bring registration into scope would be entity is of type? The documentation page says that content of type should be appropriate - but that seems like it might be related to the specific use case of the example - not in my more complex example where registration isn't the first entity dealt with, but rather a second.
https://drupal.org/node/1463042
So anyway, if all three of these entities is called in correctly, the ultimate result should be the following:
Value from boolean field (not the straight 1 or 0, but whatever the value to be submitted is switched to) from the entityform is converted to an integer, and inserted where entity host ID is required. In the section where host entity type is the value should be node.
I am also open to alternative suggestions if this seems overly complex or poorly architected.
The Host Entity Type cannot be of Entityform? Why be a Node since a Registration can be attached to any entity? Then you will get the id of the Entityform as also as any other fields from that entity type instead of Node. Next steps are the same.