Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Not all relationships appearing in vis despite setting on

Upon opening child relationships not all relationships among other nodes in the visualization appear, despite settings for showing all relationships being on. For example with two nodes that have six relationships between them, three in each direction, opening child nodes from clicking one node displays three between them (only one direction) whereas opening child nodes from the other show six, which then persist no matter in regard to closing child nodes. Are opening and closing child nodes in the visualization, even with the setting to show all relationships in query results, performing correctly? It seems a burden to have to open and close each of two ends to ensure one is seeing all relationships. If it is literally child and not parent or child that open (I.e. this is not a bug and only one direction is supposed to open), then can there be an option for both?



Hello @computationdoc and welcome to the Neo4j community

I think visualization is limited due to the return of the query. Could we see the queries?


Thank you for your responsiveness and sorry for my delay.

Yes, the queries are shareable but I think irrelevant. I’ll hunt them down...

But the issue is when opening additional “child relationships” (first UBERON Code node and then one of the Concept nodes) after the query. The query result itself does not include the Concept node relationships having the difficulties…that Concept appears after the first set open…

What does "visualization is limited due to the return of the query” mean? Do you mean that its hitting the maximum number of additional nodes and edges that can be opened at one time? If so that makes perfect sense and may be the explanation! - I wasn’t looking for those warnings…

So, if that is the issue then to me it would seem that if one is beyond the limit of number of nodes or edges to display in the visualization limit settings it might be “better” to only show nodes and "all their edges" up to the limit(s) of some kind of “AND” rather than “OR" so one doesn’t end up in this odd condition where (which I understand is possible from your comment) two nodes appear but not all the edges between them…