Re: [PROPOSAL] Strict Schema
|
Ted Wilmes <twi...@...>
Hello, That's helpful input, Ranier, and brings up a good question as to how far we want to go with this. I think one option would be to keep the PropertyKey type definitions as they are now (global), but allow them to be mapped to specific vertex and edge labels. The second would be more inline with what you're suggesting, if I'm understanding correctly, which would be properties are only created in the context of a specific vertex or edge label. This would be much more familiar to the way folks are used to using an RDBMS, eg. the "name" property on Person, could be of a different type than the "name" Property on a "Building" vertex. I think this could be particularly helpful if we add other constraints in later. For example, say we have an "age" property on a Person vertex and allow a user to specify a min & a max, or a not-null. Ideally, they'd be able to specify a different constraint in the context of another vertex/edge label. This could still be done with a global propertykey definition, but the constraints then would be tied to the element label/propertykey tuple vs just the unique propertykey. I had put together some examples of the first simpler approach, but now that I think about it, I'd like us to determine how far down this rabbit hole we should go on the first pass of this schema support work with the high level options being: 1) Define property keys globally as they are now, but allow the user to map them to vertex and edge labels. The implications is there is only one of each property key (e.g. name is always a String) 2) Define property keys in the context of a specific vertex or edge label. There can be more than one property key with the same name. Think column definitions in an RDBMS. Historically, the first would be adequate for me in the majority of cases, but the flexibility of the second would be quite powerful. What do you all think would be most helpful based upon your day-to-day modeling work? Thanks, Ted On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 10:55:01 AM UTC-6, Rainer Pichler wrote:
|
|
|