Mailing-List: contact dev-help@mahout.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@mahout.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of robin.anil@gmail.com designates
 209.85.220.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJwFCa2N+PP557-W84HV_bKtMgrxUfBoQke+MiFnB7oVGen=Pg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAB+3LJmfFXS148YOvgHtcRChQ+0moOzXs+CU+RGTdU9K538phg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwFCa2N+PP557-W84HV_bKtMgrxUfBoQke+MiFnB7oVGen=Pg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robin Anil <robin.anil@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:32:34 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAB+3LJmy=URMaeffPyYta=v8mVmNPf+NVfLmQJJ-0tFd=Vc8xQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Vector and Matrices - The Next Gen
To: Mahout-Dev <dev@mahout.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c7c908d6bd204dabaf248

--f46d043c7c908d6bd204dabaf248
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Yes, that may be a better approach. Do we in any part of our code share the
vectors across threads? Our Vector implementations are thread-unsafe. Maybe
making it threadsafe or having a threadsafe version maybe one more thing we
can build.

Robin Anil | Software Engineer | +1 312 869 2602 | Google Inc.


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Robin Anil <robin.anil@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 4) Parallelize operations: Use a consistent sharding function to
> trivially
> > parallelize certain iterative operations across multiple threads.
> >
>
> I have done this with good results, but I find it is usually better to
> thread higher up the stack because coarse threading is often easier than
> fine grain threading.
>

--f46d043c7c908d6bd204dabaf248--