Skip to content
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

Dynamic label and relationship types creation #434

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
261 changes: 261 additions & 0 deletions cip/1.accepted/CIP2020-07-31-Dynamic-label-creation.adoc
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,261 @@
= CIP2020-07-31 Dynamic label creation
:numbered:
:toc:
:toc-placement: macro
:source-highlighter: codemirror

*Author:* Mats Rydberg, <[email protected]>

[abstract]
.Abstract
--
This CIP describes the syntax and semantics for creating nodes and relationships with labels and relationship types provided via dynamic expressions.
--

toc::[]


== Motivation



== Background

Labels and relationship types in Cypher are static elements with dedicated literal syntax.
The motivation to keep these static is the complexity of query planning when faced with important grouping elements which vary across the binding table.
Such query plans would need to take different execution plans into account on a per-value basis, which is a complexity increase proportional to a product of the query cardinality.

However, for purely creational operations, query planning is trivial.
Thus, dynamically resolving labels and relationship types for the operation of adding a _new_ element to the graph seems achievable without dealing with the query planning complexity increase.

Despite the above discussion, Cypher already offers dynamic label and relationship type predicates.
This is surfaced using the `labels()` and `type()` functions, which return a list of strings and a single string, respectively.

.Querying using dynamic functions:
[source, cypher]
----
MATCH (n)-[r]->()
WHERE 'Person' IN labels(n)
AND 'KNOWS' = type(r)
RETURN n.name, r.since
----

which is equivalent to

.Querying with static label and relationship type:
[source, cypher]
----
MATCH (n:Person)-[r:KNOWS]->()
RETURN n.name, r.since
----

Note that the example query here is deliberately simple, and trivially translatable by a query planner.
If the expressions used in the predicates are not statically known, the problem becomes harder.

.Querying using dynamic functions based on per-row data:
[source, cypher]
----
MATCH (n)-[r]->()
WHERE n.property IN labels(n)
AND r.property = type(r)
RETURN n.name, r.since
----

As a result, using this syntax could result in drastically different experiences of performance which would be hard or impossible to overcome for a query planner.

However, there is no equivalent way of specifying label or relationship type when using the `CREATE` or `MERGE` clauses.
That is the central issue discussed in this CIP.


== Proposal

The proposal is based around the `labels()` and `type()` functions, and makes use of the `SET` clause to express the dynamic creation.


=== Syntax

.Syntax specification:
[source, ebnf]
----
set = // current definition of SET
| "SET", dynamic-operation ;
dynamic-operation = dynamic-label
| dynamic-rel-type ;
dynamic-label = function, "=", expression ;
| function, "+=", expression ;
function = // current definition of function
expression = // current definition of expression
dynamic-rel-type = function, "=", expression ;
----

.Full syntactic example:
[source, cypher]
----
CREATE (s)-[r]->(t)
SET labels(s) = ["Person"]
SET labels(t) += ["Friend"]
SET type(r) = "KNOWS"
----


==== Syntactic sugar


=== Semantics


==== Labels

The syntax allows for a function and expression parameter.
Semantic rules for these are as follows:

* function
** only the `labels()` function is valid
* expression
** must evaluate to a list of string (or parent type)
** an empty list is valid

The elements of the list are subject to standard rules for label names.

The semantics for labels is divided into two categories: overwriting and extending.
Labels are modified for a single node at a time, which is the node passed into the `labels()` function.


===== Overwriting

This is indicated by the use of the equality operator (`=`).
When used, any existing labels for the node will be removed and replaced with labels created from the elements of the list expression.

* When the list is empty, this means removing all labels from the node.


===== Extending

This is indicated by the use of the plus-equality operator (`+=`).
When used, any existing labels for the node will be retained, and extended with labels created from the elements of the list expression.

* When the list is empty, this is a no-op.
* When the list is a subset of the labels already on the node, this is a no-op.
* When the node has no labels, this is equivalent to the Overwriting semantics.


==== Relationship types

The syntax allows for a function and expression parameter.
Semantic rules for these are as follows:

* function
** only the `type()` function is valid
* expression
** must evaluate to a string (or parent type)

The string value of the expression is subject to standard rules for relationship type names.

Since relationships in Cypher must always have a relationship type which can never change, this operation is only allowed under certain conditions:

* The relationship variable must be defined by a `CREATE` clause
* The `CREATE` clause must not specify a relationship type for the relationship variable in the pattern
* A `SET` clause must succeed such a `CREATE` clause
* Only one `SET` clause is allowed to reference the relationship variable
* The relationship variable must not be referenced ahead of the `SET` clause
** In particular, it must not be referenced by the `SET` expression
* No projection clause is permitted between the `CREATE` and `SET` clauses

When valid, the operation will be equivalent to that of specifying the relationship type directly in the pattern.


=== Examples

==== Labels

.Creating a node with a dynamic label via parameter:
[source, cypher]
----
CREATE (n)
SET labels(n) = $parameter
----

.Creating a node with a dynamic label via parameter, syntax variant:
[source, cypher]
----
CREATE (n)
SET labels(n) += $parameter
----

.Creating a node with random labels:
[source, cypher]
----
WITH range(0, $size) AS list
CREATE (n)
SET labels(n) = [l IN list WHERE rand() * $size > l | toString(l)]
----

.Replacing all labels of a node:
[source, cypher]
----
MATCH (n)
SET labels(n) = $parameter
----

.Extending the labels of a node:
[source, cypher]
----
MATCH (n)
SET labels(n) += $parameter
----


==== Relationship types

.Creating a relationship with a dynamic relationship type via parameter:
[source, cypher]
----
CREATE ()-[r]->()
SET type(r) = $parameter
----

.Creating a relationship with a dynamic relationship type via expression:
[source, cypher]
----
CREATE ()-[r]->()
SET type(r) = reduce(type = 'MY_REL_TYPE', piece IN [(a:MyRelTypePieces) | a.piece] | type + piece)
----

===== Invalid

.Changing relationship type:
[source, cypher]
----
MATCH ()-[r]->()
SET type(r) = $parameter
----

.Referencing relationship before setting its type:
[source, cypher]
----
CREATE ()-[r]->()
SET type(r) = r.property
----

.Projection clause between CREATE and SET:
[source, cypher]
----
CREATE ()-[r]->()
WITH 1 AS a
SET type(r) = r.property
----

.Specifying relationship twice:
[source, cypher]
----
CREATE ()-[r:MY_TYPE]->()
SET type(r) = 'MY_TYPE'
----


=== Interaction with existing features



=== Alternatives