Hi Florian! That definitely sounds like a promising idea. You are most likely not the only one requiring consistency between storage and index data. In general, my advice is to start with a test case

Hi! Currently JanusGraph's philosophy is to fail transactions only if the primary persistence fails and allow failures in secondary persistence. According to

As Tinkerpop is very close for a release, I'm proposing to delay JanusGraph 0.6.0 release, so that we could ship 0.6.0 release of JanusGraph with either 3.4.11 or 3.5.0 version of Tinkerpop. I assume,

It sounds like tinkerpop will start in one week with the release. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r54ceb07f60b246342f5f2d9a09d50034c502012025eb88534fd9fa3f%40%3Cdev.tinkerpop.apache.org%3E

Yeah that makes sense. I saw you said “unreplicated” thus wondered. I am not familiar with how `system_properties` is handled, but just want to point out that it is very difficult if not

Hi Boxuan Li We are using RF3. What I meant is that essentially the data for system_properties is going to a single partition. Due to RF3, this partition is replicated 3 times. Does this

Hi @sauverma, I am just curious: I noticed you said "there is only 1 partition for system_properties unreplicated". Do you have storage.cql.replication-factor = 1?

Hi all Updates on this issue - We found that the periodic removal of system_properties (while the ingestion is running) leads to graph corruption (mentioned at high level at

What do you think? Sounds great Would such a deadline be OK? I think it is good idea to have a deadline. Von: janusgraph-dev@... <janusgraph-dev@...> im Auftrag von Oleksandr Porunov

I am good with waiting for TinkerPop 3.4.11 or 3.5.0 if we expect those releases soon, but I don't want to delay 0.6.0 release too much because the community sometimes asks for the release. Also, if

If we wait for TinkerPop 3.5.0 (or 3.4.11), we can probably also release the configurable batch sizes in 0.6.0 which should bring a noticable performance gain if used properly. Kind regards, Florian

Hi I would be great to release JanusGraph 0.6.0. I just want to mention that TinkerPop 3.5.0 is planed to be released in April. We don't release new version in frequent time span, so should we wait

Thanks for organizing this, Oleksandr! I would like to have Fix potential ThreadLocal transaction leak released in 0.6.0. If there is no further comment I plan to merge it this weekend. Graph

Hi everyone, I would like to start a discussion about JanusGraph 0.6.0 release. There were multiple requests from the community about ETA of 0.6.0 release. I wanted to check if there are any features

Hi Marc I've submitted this as a bug https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/issues/2515 Thanks

This discussion also plays on: https://lists.lfaidata.foundation/g/janusgraph-users/topic/multiple_vertices_generated/81197948

This discussion also plays on: https://lists.lfaidata.foundation/g/janusgraph-users/topic/performance_issue_large/81197952?p=,,,20,0,0,0::recentpostdate%2Fsticky,,,20,2,0,81197952

Hi JG community We are facing a weird issue with Replication factor 3 with scylla DB as backend. - we are using index for looking up V in the graph - observation is that for many vertices with the

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 01:58 AM, <simone3.cattani@...> wrote: columnsHi @simone We were planning to segregate the static configurations from the runtime dynamic configurations (last update TS from

HI @sauverma, nice, we are truncating the table, too. It's good to have your confirmation that it could safely workaround the issue. We will analyze the `gc_grace_seconds` setting now. Just for