cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Head's Up! These forums are read-only. All users and content have migrated. Please join us at community.neo4j.com.

Difference in querying relationship depth with/without apoc

Greetings,

I have the following question. Based on a similar graph (which for now we can safely assume is a tree). The relationships are one directional SPONSORS> ones.

I find a difficulty understanding the difference between the following queries and why with larger sets of data they differ.

MATCH (p:User { userId: "3"})
CALL apoc.path.subgraphNodes(p, {
	relationshipFilter: "SPONSORS>",
    maxLevel: 3
})
YIELD node
RETURN node;

And the following query:

MATCH (p:User { userId: "3"})-[:SPONSORS*..3]->(child:User)
return child;

My issue arises from the fact that I cannot understand how the second query practically works, even after reading the related documentation here:
Neo4j match relationships with variable depth.

Ultimately, I am striving to find the way to optimally query every node "under"(since I'm practically using a Tree) a given node (i.e id = 3)

My expected results from both the queries would be to return nodes from 4 to 10 (disregarding order).

Thank you for the patience and I am sorry if anything is confusing, as this is my first post here :). All recommendations/advice are welcome

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

What are you getting instead

I would expect the same. It could be that it's just ..2 as you want 2 relationships down.

subgraphNodes might be more efficient as it also controls other things (you can also set bfs/dfs here depending on how you want to traverse)

View solution in original post

2 REPLIES 2

What are you getting instead

I would expect the same. It could be that it's just ..2 as you want 2 relationships down.

subgraphNodes might be more efficient as it also controls other things (you can also set bfs/dfs here depending on how you want to traverse)

Greetings,

It seems I have had some issues with the data that I had been using.

After re-testing I see that it does actually provide the same data successfully. Thank you for the attention