Skip to content

Conversation

@rsill-neo4j
Copy link
Contributor

@rsill-neo4j rsill-neo4j commented Oct 17, 2025

This should be the same as #1391

The changes from #1325 have been incorporated.

I was unable to push to the fork 1391 was created from, that's why i raised a new PR

ToDo (moved over from the other PR, not sure how relevant they still are):

  • Clarify graph types wrt GQL appendix
  • Replace 2025.xx with actual month of release (currently not confirmed)

Related PRs:

@Hunterness Hunterness self-assigned this Oct 20, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@Hunterness Hunterness left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some of the show constraint command results lost their new columns as the vector constraint rows were added :(

Copy link
Collaborator

@Hunterness Hunterness left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Comments on the updates

Copy link
Collaborator

@Hunterness Hunterness left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Answering the classification questions as well as adding the vector property type constraints to the setup

Co-authored-by: Therese Magnusson <[email protected]>
Copy link
Collaborator

@Hunterness Hunterness left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

More comments on table formatting/alignment

Copy link
Collaborator

@Hunterness Hunterness left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No new comments 🎉

Now we just have to keep it up to date while waiting for graph types to go public/GA/beta/what the plan now is

@Hunterness Hunterness mentioned this pull request Dec 11, 2025
rsill-neo4j added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 14, 2026
Splitting the managing-indexes page, similar to what
#1406 does for constraints

Once both are in dev, the pages should also be moved to the schema nav
entry.


Most of the files touched here are updated links.
Relevant for Review are the commented out listings for indexes in
list-indexes.adoc and drop-indexes.adoc - those were collected from
create-indexes.adoc.

---------

Co-authored-by: Jessica Wright <[email protected]>
rsill-neo4j added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 14, 2026
Splitting the managing-indexes page, similar to what
#1406 does for constraints

Once both are in dev, the pages should also be moved to the schema nav
entry.


Most of the files touched here are updated links.
Relevant for Review are the commented out listings for indexes in
list-indexes.adoc and drop-indexes.adoc - those were collected from
create-indexes.adoc.

---------

Co-authored-by: Jessica Wright <[email protected]>
Copy link
Collaborator

@Hunterness Hunterness left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll confirm on our syn on thursday but I believe we targeted 2026.01 for the preview release

----

a|
Introduced two new columns returned by `SHOW CONSTRAINTS`:
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should it somehow be marked on this page that these updates are in preview as well?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

good point. i think so
will figure something out

Copy link
Collaborator

@Hunterness Hunterness left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Switching remaining 2025.xx to 2026.02

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants