Note: I am working with Neo4J 2.0.0-M02.
In previous applications, who worked with earlier versions of Neo4j (mostly 1.8.x), I've used the UniqueNodeFactory with an index on for instance, a person id. This way, I was able to create a node, only when it was needed. Because of the performance difference, I did not want to use the CREATE UNIQUE statement in Cypher, but use the Core API class:
http://api.neo4j.org/2.0.0-M02/org/neo4j/graphdb/index/UniqueFactory.UniqueNodeFactory.html
Now, in v2.0.0-M02, I don't longer use legacy indices, but I use the schema indices based on labels. My question is, are these indices compatible with the UniqueNodeFactory, and if so, what are their names that I need to pass as a parameter to the UniqueNodeFactory constructor?
I tried with passing the actual object, but the UniqueNOdeFactory is not compatible with the IndexDefinition class.
No they are not compatible, but instead 2.0 will add uniqueness constraints on label/property, enforcing such a uniqueness automatically. Perhaps M03 will contain it.
Related
Well I know the necessity of tags in struct in golang and how is it accessed by reflect in golang. But I have searched and could not find a reliable answer to the question of why I should use sql tags in struct while writing struct for sql results. I have explored many sample code and people are using sql:"index" in the struct and sql:"primary_key" in the struct.
Now I have done indexing in the database layer, isn’t it enough? Should I have to use sql:"index" too get the best results? Like so I have defined primary key attribute in the database should I have to specify sql:"primary_key" as well?
My code seems to work fine without those. Just want to know their benefit and usages.
I think you are referring to an ORM library like gorm
In that case, metadata like sql:"primary_key" or sql:"index" will just tell the ORM to create an index while trying to setup the tables or maybe migrate them.
A couple of examples in gorm could be: indexes, primary keys, foreign keys, many2many relations or when trying to adapt an exiting schema into your gorm models, setting the type explicitly, like for example:
type Address struct {
ID int
Address1 string `sql:"not null;unique"` // Set field as not nullable and unique
Address2 string `sql:"type:varchar(100);unique"`
Post sql.NullString `sql:"not null"`
}
Depends on the package you are using and your use-case. Is it enough for CRUD? Almost always, unless the package says so which is often rare but possible. Few packages sometime do under the hood magic which may give rise to bugs. If you are aware of these behaviours, or are quite explicit in your code, you'll probably avoid it.
Indexing tags mostly allows you to use package's migration tools translating your model declaration into sql queries (CREATE statements). So if you always want to do this by yourself, then you probably needn't bother adding such tags.
But you may find yourself a bug if your package requires a tag. For example, in case of gorm, the Model method takes a struct pointer as an input. If this struct has a field named ID it uses it as a primary key, that is, say ID has a value of "4", it will add a WHERE id=4 automatically. In case your struct has ID, you needn't even add a primary_key tag and it will still be treated as one. This behaviour may cause issues when you have both a "non-primary-key" ID field, and another field which you are actually using as the primary key. Another example for gorm is this. A possible behaviour can also be checking for nullable property and throwing an error if an INSERT statement involves a NOT NULL field getting a NULL value.
On a different note, adding tags to your structs can be considered good practice since it gives context of its properties in the DB.
Tinkerpop 3 introduces the great concept of labels. We are heavily using this feature where it identifies the schema used.
However, i see no support for labels when using indexes:
Graph#createIndex(String key, Class<E> elementClass)
Is there any way to create label specific indexes?
UPDATE
I am using TinkerGraph (in memory reference implementation).
After reading several tutorials I still have problems understanding IndexedDB completely...
I already build a "playground-app" with it, but I have a question before continuing....
Is it recommended to have a distinct "id" field in the ObjectStores?
What happens if object at index 42 (without id-field) needs to be updated? [From what I know IndexedDB doesn't have an update command.] How would you exchange/update this object in-place without breaking the references to this objects?
When you have a id-field - How to find a unused id-value when you add a new object to an ObjectStore? Is there a clever way to do it?
I couldn't find a discussion about this on SO or somewhere else...
cheers!
Using an id is not required but is recommended because it simplifies writing your program. This advice applies to traditional relational databases (SQL) and indexedDB (NoSQL).
Using a simple integer counter is helpful and recommended, even when you have another property or group of properties (a composite/compound primary key) that uniquely identifies each object in a store.
indexedDB provides a way to generate 'unused' id values. Use the autoincrement flag when calling createObjectStore and setting the key path.
See the MDB documentation to learn more. Specifically, review the section on object store keys.
In regards to the 42 question, you can open a cursor, then advance the cursor by 42, and then retrieve the value, change its properties, and then, if the underlying transaction is in readwrite mode, you can call cursor.update to replace the object at the cursor's position. Using this technique is not recommended primarily because it is not practical and can be confusing. It is preferable to use a simple auto-incremented integer id, especially when you are just learning.
It does not matter what the name of the property that represents the key is, so long as it conforms to normal JavaScript object property naming rules, and you access it consistently.
How does activerecord assign an ID to a newly created record? The ID values seem to be all over the place. Sometimes they are sequential, but sometimes they seem to be some kind of a hash.
Is there a way to control the behavior?
Within a relational database you'll see that IDs are usually sequential. This happens to be an automatically incrementing field called id by default in these databases with Rails. This is the 99% case, meaning that 99% of the time you can expect to see it done this way. It's the sane way.
However, There are some cases in which the "id" field within the database may not be automatically incrementing and may instead be a string. In a database I am working with at the moment, the id field is called client_id, is a 6-character string such as "RAB001" and needs to be manually assigned by the code itself. This is due to a legacy system we are supporting and there's nothing we can do to fix that. It's just how it is.
In other databases such as Mongoid the ids are, once again, generated automatically. There's a difference here though: instead of them being automatically incrementing numbers they are a hash. In a Mongo database I happen to have handy, one of the object's _id fields (note the underscore) is this lovely, easy-to-understand1 hash: 4e22b5812f8b7d6f6d000001. This is automatically generated by Mongo and I don't really care what it is except for when I need to find an object and there's no other way of finding it by another unique value.
I would recommend sticking with an automatically generating ID system, be it something provided by the traditional database systems such as PostgreSQL or MySQL or something by Mongo.
Any system where you need to generate the primary key for a record manually needs to have a huge "HERE BE DRAGONS" label on it and should be handled like a case of nitroglycerin or similarly to this apt analogy. Avoid this system if you can.
1 I am being sarcastic here.
Is it possible in hibernate to have an entity where some IDs are assigned and some are generated?
For instance:
Some objects have an ID between 1-10000 that are generated outside of the database; while some entities come in with no ID and need an ID generated by the database.
You could use 'assigned' as the Id generation strategy, but you would have to give the entity its id before you saved it to the database. Alternately you could build your own implementation of org.hibernate.id.IdentifierGenerator to provide the Id in the manner you've suggested.
I have to agree w/ Cade Roux though, and doing so seems like it be much more difficult than using built in increment, uuid, or other form of id generation.
I would avoid this and simply have an auxiliary column for the information about the source of the object and a column for the external identifier (assuming the external identifier was an important value you wanted to keep track of).
It's generally a bad idea to use columns for mixed purposes - in this case to infer from the nature of a surrogate key the source of an object.
Use any generator you like, make sure it can start at an offset (when you use a sequence, you can initialize it accordingly).
For all other entities, call setId() before you insert them. Hibernate will only generate an id if the id property is 0. Note that you should first insert objects with ids into the db and then work with them. There is a lot of code in Hibernate which expects the object to be in the DB when id != 0.
Another solution is to use negative ids for entities which come with an id. This will also make sure that there are no collisions when you insert an new object.