-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 871
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
Expand(out("edgeName")) VS Expand(out("edgeName").@RID) Performance Difference #3384
Comments
So I'm closing this issue. You discovered a best practice to keep memory lower ;-) |
This consumes less memory in all cases? |
@devourment77 Could you share your db so I can do some tests to understand if @vitorenesduarte is right about changing default behavior? |
@lvca any progress here? |
@vitorenesduarte I haven't received any response from @devourment77. I'd like to have a db where I can debug why there is so much difference |
I've created a dummy database with this but the times of both queries are very alike so far. |
I found a bug thanks to your code: the fetchplan fetches more than it should by loading many unnecessary records. |
Do you mean with Java API? |
The problem seems exactly this: no error but slowness because all not necessary loads. Fixing this in 2.0.8 and 2.1-rc2 |
Apologies for not getting back on this topic and thank you @vitorenesduarte and @lvca for looking into the issue further. |
The problem was only in console: fetchplan *:1 was used by default instead of *:0. |
Hello,
We have run into an odd performance issue with 2.0-SNAPSHOT with expand(). It seems that if you expand on an edge and include dot RID, it is much faster than if you do not. Oddly, both return the same data (whereas expand(out("edgeName").realProperty) only returns the realProperty field).
I am unsure if this is normal behavior or not, but we are seeing approx. 300ms performance difference.
Also, we are seeing some sizes of negative 1 (see "in_hasConcept" column). Note that Attractions have multiple concepts.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: