-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 870
New issue
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
Request for ability to traverse from optional nodes #7803
Comments
I'm not tied to using that specific structure or that specific keyword to implement this -- I'd be happy with any solution that allows MATCH queries to traverse from an optional vertex. But yes, this would be amazing to have in the 2.2.x series! |
Hi @mwhitehead Thank you for opening this specific issue, it will let us better track this feature. My short term advice here is to try to re-write the query as follows:
I hope it helps Thanks Luigi |
Hey all, just wanted to give you a heads-up that the GraphQL compiler project has built a workaround for this issue: The idea is that we can take a query that requires optional traversals, and represent it as the union of two queries: one where the traversal isn't optional but required, and one where the edge for that traversal is not allowed to exist. The final compiled result looks something like the following:
This corresponds to the following GraphQL query:
This workaround will help until OrientDB is able to support such an operation natively, which I am sure would dramatically improve the performance of such queries. |
OrientDB Version: 2.2.29+
OS: linux
Expected behavior
@luigidellaquila There is an existing issue requesting this, but it's been combined with another request that is effectively closed. I know it's on your todo list, but this feature is quite important for my team so thought it warranted its own issue.
For consistency's sake, I will re-post that request and example here:
Given this query:
Actual behavior
Not supported
Steps to reproduce
Please refer to details issue #6788
CC @obi1kenobi @smolinari @saeedtabrizi @santo-it
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: