We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
The following two queries are equivalent:
MATCH (C1) -[:CppContains]-> (P1), (C2) -[:CppContains]-> (P2), (P1) -[R:CppCalls]-> (P2) WHERE C1 <> C2 RETURN P1, P2, Count(R) AS Relations ORDER BY Relations DESC
and
MATCH (C1) -[:CppContains]-> (P1) -[R:CppCalls]-> (P2) <-[:CppContains]- (C2) WHERE C1 <> C2 RETURN P1, P2, Count(R) AS Relations ORDER BY Relations DESC
The query
is shown by neo4j as follows
With the following warning text (that pops up on hoover over)
I would have expected that both queries are treated equally by neo4j. In fact, I think the warning for the first query is wrong.
Can you confirm that
Thanks in advance for your answers and bug fix!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Note that the equivalent query
MATCH (C1) -[:CppContains]-> (P1), (P1) -[R:CppCalls]-> (P2), (C2) -[:CppContains]-> (P2) WHERE C1 <> C2 RETURN P1, P2, Count(R) AS Relations ORDER BY Relations DESC
is also shown without any warning:
Sorry, something went wrong.
Thank you so much for raising this issue @pjljvandelaar I have pushed a fix for this which should go out in an upcoming version release.
Thanks and regards, Sachin
SachinVasant
No branches or pull requests
Configuration
Neo4j
OS
Steps to reproduce
The following two queries are equivalent:
and
Actual behavior
The query
is shown by neo4j as follows
With the following warning text (that pops up on hoover over)
The query
is shown by neo4j as follows
Expected behavior
I would have expected that both queries are treated equally by neo4j.
In fact, I think the warning for the first query is wrong.
Questions
Can you confirm that
Thanks in advance for your answers and bug fix!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: