[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-2961?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17751194#comment-17751194
]
Stephen Mallette edited comment on TINKERPOP-2961 at 8/4/23 6:45 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It was additionally noted that for:
{code}
g.V().match(
__.as("n2").out().as("n1"),
__.as("n2").in().in().in().both().in().as("n1"),
__.as("n2").both().in().in().as("n3"),
__.as("n3").in().both().as("n2"),
__.as("n2").in().in().in().in().both().as("n4"),
__.as("n2").out().both().in().as("n4"),
__.as("n3").both().as("n4"),
__.as("n1").in().both().both().both().as("n5")
).dedup().count()
{code}
> After creating the graph based on the statements provided in the Jira
> attachment, I obtained a result. Then, I deleted all the nodes and recreated
> the same graph. Surprisingly, when I ran the same query again, it returned a
> different result. This inconsistency in the query results may suggest a
> potential bug in the schema creation process. I would appreciate any
> assistance in reproducing and confirming this issue.
was (Author: spmallette):
It was additionally noted that:
> After creating the graph based on the statements provided in the Jira
> attachment, I obtained a result. Then, I deleted all the nodes and recreated
> the same graph. Surprisingly, when I ran the same query again, it returned a
> different result. This inconsistency in the query results may suggest a
> potential bug in the schema creation process. I would appreciate any
> assistance in reproducing and confirming this issue.
> Missing exceptions for unsolvable match pattern, which may lead to logic
> inconsistency
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TINKERPOP-2961
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-2961
> Project: TinkerPop
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: process
> Affects Versions: 3.6.0
> Reporter: Miracy Cavendish
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: create-8.log
>
>
> Hi all! From
> [Discord|https://discord.com/channels/838910279550238720/1064868348925583442/threads/1117146194666332250].
> We noticed that in some cases unsolvable matching will not lead to the
> exception "unsolvable pattern" in Gremlin.
> For a simple example, in the empty graph, the following query will not lead
> to an exception, while it will result in an exception in the GraphModern:
> {code:java}
> g.V().match(__.as("A").out().as("B"), __.as("C").out().as("B"),
> __.as("D").out().as("A"))
> {code}
> In more complex cases, this missing may lead to a worse result.
> For example, in the graph created by attachment _create-8.log_
> {code:java}
> g.V().match(
> __.as("n2").out().as("n1"),
> __.as("n2").in().in().in().both().in().as("n1"),
> __.as("n2").both().in().in().as("n3"),
> __.as("n3").in().both().as("n2"),
> __.as("n2").in().in().in().in().both().as("n4"),
> __.as("n2").out().both().in().as("n4"),
> __.as("n3").both().as("n4"),
> __.as("n1").in().both().both().both().as("n5")
> ).dedup().count()
> =>306691
> g.V().match(
> __.as("n2").out().as("n1"),
> __.as("n2").in().in().in().both().in().as("n1"),
> __.as("n2").both().in().in().as("n3"),
> __.as("n3").in().both().as("n2"),
> __.as("n4").both().out().out().out().out().as("n2"),
> __.as("n2").out().both().in().as("n4"),
> __.as("n3").both().as("n4"),
> __.as("n1").in().both().both().both().as("n5")
> ).dedup().count()
> =>306075
> {code}
> The two queries are equivalent, the only difference is the expression of the
> traversal "__.as("n4").both().out().out().out().out().as("n2")".
> I am not sure which of their results in the correct result, but the logic
> inconsistency indicates that the missing exception may cause worse results
> than we thought before.
> After the discussion with [~spmallette], we believe that it would be better
> if detect the unsolvable pattern before the execution.
> {*}In addition{*}, *it would be highly appreciated if someone can reproduce
> and confirm the logic inconsistency in the complex cases. I think it may
> imply other potential issues of the traversal strategies.* And if such logic
> inconsistency still exists using both solvable equivalent patterns, we will
> reduce & report is ASAP.
>
> Best regards,
> Joye Mang
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
