Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ignite.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@ignite.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1511191496537-0.post@n4.nabble.com>
References: <1511185708961-0.post@n4.nabble.com> <1511191496537-0.post@n4.nabble.com>
From: Alexey Zinoviev <zaleslaw.sin@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:21:21 +0300
Message-ID: <CAPZKnBpOVZ7eSv46ZOT_uxOWEm3ms8WxMsDaE_7k5tLm57TPBA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ignite ML dense distributed matrices
To: dev@ignite.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1142195acc068a055e790cdc"
archived-at: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 07:21:32 -0000

--001a1142195acc068a055e790cdc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Yury, I support one matrix with different strategies if it will have one
API.
Also distributed/local can be a strategy too.

And yet, Artem, Yury, we could think about DenceBlockDistributedMatrix of
course.

Or about Matrix(boolean isDistributed, boolean isBlock, boolean isSparse)
and implement all 8 cases

2017-11-20 18:24 GMT+03:00 Yury Babak <y.chief@gmail.com>:

> Artem,
>
> I think It`s a good idea. We could implement dense matrix as separate
> matrix, but what do you think about common distributed matrix with multiple
> possible storage strategies?
>
> Regards,
> Yury
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>

--001a1142195acc068a055e790cdc--