Apache TinkerPop•10mo ago

mergeE(): increment counter on match

Hi, is there an easy way to increment an existing edge property based on its current value using mergeE() in one single query? (e.g., counter += 1) Something similar to this:

g.mergeE([(T.label):'called', (from): person1, (to):person2]).
  option(Merge.onCreate,['num_calls': 1]).
  option(Merge.onMatch,['num_calls': X+1])

g.mergeE([(T.label):'called', (from): person1, (to):person2]).
  option(Merge.onCreate,['num_calls': 1]).
  option(Merge.onMatch,['num_calls': X+1])

where X is the current value of edge propery num_calls.

Solution:

gremlin> g.mergeE([(Direction.from):44,(Direction.to):8]).valueMap(true)
==>[id:5062,label:route,dist:549]

gremlin> g.mergeE([(Direction.from):44,(Direction.to):8]).valueMap(true)
==>[id:5062,label:route,dist:549]

and then...

Jump to solution

11 Replies

rpugaOP•10mo ago

BTW, I was able to obtain the result I need with a query that looks like this:

p1 = g.addV('person').property('name', 'marko').next()
p2 = g.addV('person').property('name', 'maria').next()
g.V(p1).as("v1").
V(p2).as("v2").
coalesce(
    select("v1").outE("called").where(inV().has(id, select("v2").id())),
    addE("called").from("v1").to("v2").property("num_calls", 0)).
    as("e").
property(
    "num_calls",
    union(select("e").values("num_calls").unfold(), constant(1)).sum())

p1 = g.addV('person').property('name', 'marko').next()
p2 = g.addV('person').property('name', 'maria').next()
g.V(p1).as("v1").
V(p2).as("v2").
coalesce(
    select("v1").outE("called").where(inV().has(id, select("v2").id())),
    addE("called").from("v1").to("v2").property("num_calls", 0)).
    as("e").
property(
    "num_calls",
    union(select("e").values("num_calls").unfold(), constant(1)).sum())

but I'm wondering how something similar can be done with mergeE()

Valentyn Kahamlyk•10mo ago

I think this is impossible now. @spmallette, do you think this is a good use case for passing matching Element as context to onMatch traversal?

Flynnt•10mo ago

And what about delegating this « business stuff » to an event strategy ?

kelvinl2816•10mo ago

So long as mergeE is used as a start step, I think you can make this work. But it maybe that this ability needs to get disabled temporarily in order to prevent some error conditions we have seen lately from happening as @Valentyn Kahamlyk mentions while we rework the mergeE semantics a little. I'll post an example in a bit. Need to type one up.

Solution

kelvinl2816•10mo ago

gremlin> g.mergeE([(Direction.from):44,(Direction.to):8]).valueMap(true)
==>[id:5062,label:route,dist:549]

gremlin> g.mergeE([(Direction.from):44,(Direction.to):8]).valueMap(true)
==>[id:5062,label:route,dist:549]

and then

gremlin>  g.mergeE([(Direction.from):44,(Direction.to):8]).
......1>     option(onMatch,property('dist',union(values('dist'), __.constant(1)).sum()).constant([:])).valueMap(true)   
==>[id:5062,label:route,dist:550]

gremlin>  g.mergeE([(Direction.from):44,(Direction.to):8]).
......1>     option(onMatch,property('dist',union(values('dist'), __.constant(1)).sum()).constant([:])).valueMap(true)   
==>[id:5062,label:route,dist:550]

kelvinl2816•10mo ago

@spmallette has been working on some PRs to improve a few mergeE behaviors. I would like him to comment on whether my example will still be vallid after those updates land. So @rpuga that is one way you can (with the current latest version) make this work. Regarding EventStrategy @Flynnt , those only really make sense when the graph is embedded into the application (as a TinkerGraph can be). In order to catch database wide changes you need something more like the Amazon Neptune CDC stream, or JanusGraph triggers.

Flynnt•10mo ago

Totally agree. And with those, transactional problems can occurs. I think that the best approche for the use case is a change in the data models. And not in using the merge step. with the introduction of a vertex « phone calls » and « call » (for exemple) phone calls beeing liked to the two person and liked to each call. This way a new call is just a new vertex in the graph liked to a relation. And for knowing the count, you can just count the edges.

rpugaOP•9mo ago

Thanks @Kelvin Lawrence, your solution works great! Adapting it to the example graph I was using, it looks like this:

g.mergeE([(T.label):'called', (from):p1, (to):p2]).
  option(Merge.onCreate, ['num_calls': 1]).
  option(Merge.onMatch, property('num_calls', union(values('num_calls'), constant(1)).sum()).constant([:]))

g.mergeE([(T.label):'called', (from):p1, (to):p2]).
  option(Merge.onCreate, ['num_calls': 1]).
  option(Merge.onMatch, property('num_calls', union(values('num_calls'), constant(1)).sum()).constant([:]))

kelvinl2816•9mo ago

FYI @spmallette and @Valentyn Kahamlyk this is I think one of the key cases where being able to do additional work inside onMatch is very useful.

Valentyn Kahamlyk•9mo ago

Will we have same behavior for starting and mid-traversal mergeE?

kelvinl2816•9mo ago

Currently no unfortunately. It will depend on what is in the stream until changes can be made to the way the step is working today. I called out this case mainly as an example of a behavior that needs to be supported in some way (as it is very useful).

Gaming

Programming

mergeE(): increment counter on match