Description
The most expensive traversals (especially in OLAP) are those that can not be "bulked." There are various reasons why two traversers at the same object can not be bulked, but the primary reason is PATH or LABELED_PATH. That is, when the history of the traverser is required, the probability of two traversers having the same history is low.
A key to making traversals more efficient is to do as a much as possible to remove historic information from a traverser so it can get bulked. How does one do this?
g.V.as('a').out().as('b').out().where(neq('a').and().neq('b')).both().name
The LABELED_PATH of "a" and "b" are required up to the where() and at which point, at both(), they are no longer required. It would be smart to support:
traverser.dropLabels(Set<String>)
traverser.dropPath()
We would then, via a TraversalOptimizationStrategy insert a step between where() and both() called PathPruneStep which would be a SideEffectStep. The strategy would know which labels were no longer needed (via forward lookahead) and then do:
public class PathPruneStep { final Set<String> dropLabels = ... final boolean dropPath = ... public void sideEffect(final Traverser<S> traverser) { final Traverser<S> start = this.starts.next(); if(this.dropPath) start.dropPath(); else start.dropLabels(labels); } }
Again, the more we can prune historic path data no longer needed, the higher the probability of bulking. Think about this in terms of match().
g.V().match(
a.out.b,
b.out.c,
c.neq.a,
c.out.b,
).select("a")
All we need is "a" at the end. Thus, once a pattern has been passed and no future patterns require that label, drop it!
This idea is related to TINKERPOP-331, but I don't think we should deal with manipulating the species. Thus, I think 331 is too "low level."
Attachments
Issue Links
- relates to
-
TINKERPOP-331 TraverserConverterStep (proposal)
-
- Closed
-
- links to
