giraph-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eli Reisman <apache.mail...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: LongDoubleFloatDoubleVertex
Date Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:55:14 GMT
I like the idea of refactoring it into something more appropriate for us
and ditching the Mahout dep. Good looking out.


On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Claudio Martella <
claudio.martella@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree, at this point we could have a RandomWalkVertex with edge values,
> and a "null-edged" vertex for the PR benchmarks.
> We make everybody happy and avoid code duplication.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Alessandro Presta <alessandro@fb.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi Gianmarco,
> >
> > Yes, there will be more efficient implementations.
> > In the redesign I'm working on (GIRAPH-528), there will be only one
> Vertex
> > class and edge storage is delegated to a VertexEdges class.
> > So far I'm adding some generic implementations (ByteArrayEdges,
> > ArrayListEdges, HashMapEdges) that work for all types, and some optimized
> > ones (LongDoubleArrayEdges, LongNullArrayEdges).
> >
> > Do you specifically need edge values to be float while the other types
> are
> > double?
> > It seems to me it would make sense to change RandomWalkVertex to use
> > double edge values instead, and avoid code duplication (i.e. adding a
> > LongFloatArrayEdges that's basically the same). We're not Trove after
> all.
> > Makes sense?
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback,
> >
> > Alessandro
> >
> >
> > On 2/28/13 1:54 AM, "Gianmarco De Francisci Morales" <gdfm@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >Maybe the specific implementation can be thrown away, but personally I
> > >feel
> > >very strongly for the need of a good LongDoubleFloatDouble vertex.
> > >It's the base for any serious random walk algorithm.
> > >
> > >I would call for a refactoring rather than a removal.
> > >
> > >Just my 2c.
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >
> > >--
> > >Gianmarco
> > >
> > >
> > >On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Alessandro Presta
> > ><alessandro@fb.com>wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> Does anyone feel strongly for LongDoubleFloatDoubleVertex?
> > >> Reasons why I think it should be removed:
> > >>
> > >>   1.  Right now it's incorrect (returns target vertex id as edge
> value).
> > >>   2.  Iteration will always be inefficient, since the underlying
> Mahout
> > >> open-addressing hash map implementation doesn't provide iterators. It
> > >> provides a way to copy the keys and values to external arrays/lists.
> > >>   3.  It's the only reason why we have Mahout as a dependency.
> > >>
> > >> I think we should strive to provide model implementations that are
> > >>generic
> > >> and/or extremely efficient. This one satisfies neither.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >>
> > >> Alessandro
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>    Claudio Martella
>    claudio.martella@gmail.com
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message