You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mahout.apache.org by "Jake Mannix (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2009/12/08 18:57:18 UTC
[jira] Commented: (MAHOUT-206) Separate and clearly label different
SparseVector implementations
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-206?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12787596#action_12787596 ]
Jake Mannix commented on MAHOUT-206:
------------------------------------
Grant, I can take over this one, since it's my changes.
> Separate and clearly label different SparseVector implementations
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MAHOUT-206
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-206
> Project: Mahout
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Matrix
> Affects Versions: 0.2
> Environment: all
> Reporter: Jake Mannix
> Assignee: Jake Mannix
> Fix For: 0.3
>
> Attachments: MAHOUT-206.patch, MAHOUT-206.patch
>
>
> Shashi's last patch on MAHOUT-165 swapped out the int/double parallel array impl of SparseVector for an OpenIntDoubleMap (hash-based) one. We actually need both, as I think I've mentioned a gazillion times.
> There was a patch, long ago, on MAHOUT-165, in which Ted had OrderedIntDoubleVector, and OpenIntDoubleHashVector (or something to that effect), and neither of them are called SparseVector. I like this, because it forces people to choose what kind of SparseVector they want (and they should: sparse is an optimization, and the client should make a conscious decision what they're optimizing for).
> We could call them RandomAccessSparseVector and SequentialAccessSparseVector, to be really obvious.
> But really, the important part is we have both.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.