Awesome progress.
Thanks much!
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Gokhan Capan <gkhncpn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok then, now my roadmap is:
>
> Tomorrow I will resubmit the Lucene Matrix patch with support for
> multiple fields (Probably SRM subclassed version of multimatrices after
> testing it).
>
> Multivectors is another thing that the community may be interested in
> (maybe to help them to assign a row of multimatrices), I can submit it
> upon request after asking in devlist.
>
> This week I will refactor the factorization machine with SGD
> implementation to make it operate on a single matrix as input, and then try
> it on a dataset. Then we can talk on submitting a diff for the algorithm.
> (And possible use cases for the algorithm, e.g. integration with
> Recommender interface)
>
> Then the persistent version of the LuceneMatrix and an InputFormat on top
> of it will come.
>
> Ted, Robin,
> Thank you for all responses, all helped me a lot.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Gokhan Capan <gkhncpn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  I strongly suspect that you don't need to implement VectorSuperView.
>>>> Won't the normal handling of viewRow in AbstractMatrix work here? Speed
>>>> may be an issue, but all speed questions should be decided by measurements.
>>>>
>>> It was because the iterateNonZero didn't work, and this was intended to
>>> work on mostly sparse matrices. I think (but I'm not sure yet) making this
>>> ConcatenatedMatrix a direct subclass of SparseRowMatrix would solve this
>>> problem, that may be an option. (I personally needed this multivectors
>>> anyway, so I implemented it)
>>>
>>
>> This is an interesting option (subclassing from SRM).
>>
>> Having the multivectors is nice as you say. My only point was that they
>> weren't necessarily implied by the need for row views. I am not sure which
>> would be faster in the end.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 
> Gokhan
>
