CODEWITHSUNDEEP
neo4jcypherneo4j-apoc
Tralala
Tralala

Reputation: 45

Conditional partial merge of pattern into graph

I'm trying to create a relationship that connects a person to a city -> state -> country without recreating the city/state/country nodes and relationships if they do already exist - so I'd end-up with only one USA node in my graph for example

I start with a person

CREATE (p:Person {name:'Omar', Id: 'a'})
RETURN p

then I'd like to turn this into an apoc.do.case statement with apoc or turn it into one merge statement using unique the constraint that creates a new node if no node is found or otherwise matches an existing node

// first case where the city/state/country all exist
MATCH (locality:Locality{name:"San Diego"})-[:SITUATED_IN]->(adminArea:AdministrativeArea { name: 'California' })-[:SITUATED_IN]->(country:Country { name: 'USA' })
MERGE (p)-[:SITUATED_IN]->(locality)-[:SITUATED_IN]->(adminArea)-[:SITUATED_IN]->(country)
return p

// second case where only state/country exist
MATCH (adminArea:AdministrativeArea { name: 'California' })-[:SITUATED_IN]->(country:Country { name: 'USA' })
MERGE (p)-[:SITUATED_IN]->(locality:Locality{name:"San Diego"})-[:SITUATED_IN]->(adminArea)-[:SITUATED_IN]->(country)
return p

// third case where only country exists
MATCH (country:Country { name: 'USA' })
MERGE (p)-[:SITUATED_IN]->(locality:Locality{name:"San Diego"})-[:SITUATED_IN]->(adminArea:AdministrativeArea { name: 'California' })-[:SITUATED_IN]->(country)
return p

// last case where none of city/state/country exist, so I have to create all nodes + relations
MERGE (p)-[:SITUATED_IN]->(locality:Locality{name:"San Diego"})-[:SITUATED_IN]->(adminArea:AdministrativeArea { name: 'California' })-[:SITUATED_IN]->(country:Country { name: 'USA' })
return p

The key here is I only want to end-up with one (California)->(USA). I don't want those nodes & relationships to get duplicated

Upvotes: 0

Views: 263

Answers (2)

Tralala
Tralala

Reputation: 45

Finally, the solution I used is much simpler, it's a series of merges.

match (person:Person {Id: 'Omar'}) // that should be present in the graph
merge (country:Country {name: 'USA'})
merge (state:State {name: 'California'})-[:SITUATED_IN]->(country)
merge (city:City {name: 'Los Angeles'})-[:SITUATED_IN]->(state)
merge (person)-[:SITUATED_IN]->(city)
return person;

Upvotes: 0

cybersam
cybersam

Reputation: 67044

  1. Your queries that use MATCH never specify which Person you want. Variable names like p only exist for the life of a query (and sometimes not even that long). So p is unbound in your MATCH queries, and can result in your MERGE clauses creating empty nodes. You need to add MATCH (p:Person {Id: 'a'}) to the start of those queries (assuming all people have unique Id values).
  2. It should NOT be the responsibility of every single query to ensure that all needed localities exist and are connected correctly -- that is way too much complexity and overhead for every query. Instead, you should create the appropriate localities and inter-locality relationships separately -- before you need them. If fact, it should be the responsibility of each query that creates a locality to create all the relationships associated with it.
  3. A MERGE will only not create the specified pattern if every single thing in the pattern already exists, so to avoid duplicates a MERGE pattern should have at most 1 thing that might not already exist. So, a MERGE pattern should have at most 1 relationship, and if it has a relationship then the 2 end nodes should already be bound (by MATCH clauses, for example).

Once the Locality nodes and the inter-locality relationships exist, you can add a person like this:

MATCH (locality:Locality {name: "San Diego"})
MERGE (p:Person {Id: 'a'}) // create person if needed, specifying a unique identifier
ON CREATE SET p.name = 'Omar'; // set other properties as needed
MERGE (p)-[:SITUATED_IN]->(locality) // create relationship if necessary

The above considerations should help you design the code for creating the Locality nodes and the inter-locality relationships.

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions