Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-mahout-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 23193 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2009 18:36:01 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Jul 2009 18:36:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 74858 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jul 2009 18:36:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-mahout-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 74808 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jul 2009 18:36:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact mahout-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: mahout-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list mahout-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 74798 invoked by uid 99); 10 Jul 2009 18:36:10 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:36:10 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ted.dunning@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.205 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.217.205] (HELO mail-gx0-f205.google.com) (209.85.217.205) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:36:02 +0000 Received: by gxk1 with SMTP id 1so297862gxk.5 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=6Yt8gdCK+fiO8nrLgTHX/s5NeBgjfa0aZnCxnt3yAfg=; b=Iv8RPE5ULD4VuKxNGMDQS4RE+jDIefXI1GV9tu2FwffewAHDTcxSGXsh4lQoe2AjE2 y7Wq0Dtu4dPMZptw3OMu774XbkfmYNRwliONG5huHktTAid8JuQm8Yr48mEqxsMoAO92 xTvRViyIkD+HvZUiJfA8N/tnio2hOk6YoAoIE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=hv/7RaD1AxylgZSvihl5/fRi8oLFDTRqIxKgDGeuS//u0dcyWxBZjlay57db+s3GXw mn7MSXPf5ivcR6BFpw1ak0/I4xW5Setgbj6qLElEU6syvm21VAB0i358IlhrsLM5R5yY abhgXISZbWji88UPg+H+ELcMYU32Batvsf2GM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.158.21 with SMTP id g21mr3739958ybe.46.1247250942138; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4A5703F8.8050603@mufin.com> <4A57319F.5090008@mufin.com> From: Ted Dunning Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:35:22 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Memory and Speed Questions for Item-Based-Recommender To: mahout-user@lucene.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd59a265a1b8d046e5e3d7c X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --000e0cd59a265a1b8d046e5e3d7c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Storing the item-item links in Lucene and forming a query with recent history is a pretty easy way to get real-time recommendations. This can also get rid of the cache because standard measures applied to make Lucene fast will work on this. On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > Also, it sounds like you are trying to do real-time recommendations, > like synchronously with a user request. This can be hard since it > imposes such a tight time limit. Consider doing recommendations > asynchronously if you can. For example, start computing > recommendations when the user logs in, and maybe on the 2nd page view > 5 seconds later, you are ready to recommend something. > --000e0cd59a265a1b8d046e5e3d7c--