Mike
Mike
I believe that you are correct. As far as I understand the query language, the syntax you used as an example is necessary to express more complex criteria. Logically, that...
You are right about that being counter-intuitive, but that looks really promising. I will try out your proposed solution shortly.
My first attempt to use this syntax is showing some weird results. Taking the original, simple example query of ``` MATCH (f:fact_anesthesia) WHERE NOT (f)-[]->(:dim_drug_admin {drug_name:'acetaminophen'}) RETURN f ``` and...
From the description of that PR, it certainly looks like it could be related. Would it be worth me trying out building the branch that is the source of the...
I will give it a shot this afternoon.
Ok, I won't bother trying to get the WITH syntax to work for the time being.
@DvirDukhan has anything moved on your planned design to address this issue? We have been using a workaround based on a assumption that will soon be no longer valid. I...
I will try using the query pattern you suggest with OPTIONAL MATCH. I think I probably can make it fit with the rest of the query building logic I have...
I am still working on making sure my code is logically doing the right thing and is accurately representing your suggestion and the preliminary performance results are pretty concerning. The...
Some additional observations as I continue to explore this space. When I added more OPTIONAL MATCH blocks, the scaling of execution time was much worse when I waited until the...