Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-mahout-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-mahout-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0660A1084B for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 19:43:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 24670 invoked by uid 500); 7 Sep 2013 19:43:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-mahout-user-archive@mahout.apache.org Received: (qmail 24500 invoked by uid 500); 7 Sep 2013 19:43:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@mahout.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@mahout.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@mahout.apache.org Received: (qmail 24317 invoked by uid 99); 7 Sep 2013 19:43:21 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 19:43:21 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ted.dunning@gmail.com designates 209.85.223.178 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.223.178] (HELO mail-ie0-f178.google.com) (209.85.223.178) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 19:43:17 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id f4so9611088iea.37 for ; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 12:42:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=+P3jbidrmQJwh9tybUeRtaGZTbfExehxEz987ibCu5c=; b=a/9G7MVztHaS0aFTitjW6bo3vhL9f+EkmdAsUK1VjYglB0UuxZM2uDNyy404RNerFw dyknid2m29t6vh55Yd6fVNu+ptawU1jH9TnHehB4Kwld76l52k9dIYUUhhJKLu0282n+ Pj5x37B6qyQJZAY+GuRS6KTdn/2UYZn1fYz6JEWMkvdX+LqTBpiEQTz4/FGSTcTV+LqX MZgm6EDxI7kKYSz7guB378/ZyPUl3HulEtsePjRWtqD1c3dNUnwenOh5hVGzFdOxSu/L e6mb5LatnCQ2Bqw+RVEogChHTUmnIQDAV/ZKCBCnaz0Im8hKjwuFeBkmkgOuNF4bN8xT UzFQ== X-Received: by 10.43.98.202 with SMTP id cp10mr5352006icc.28.1378582976943; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 12:42:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.224.145 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 12:42:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <522B6144.9040703@googlemail.com> From: Ted Dunning Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 12:42:25 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Hadoop implementation of ParallelSGDFactorizer To: "user@mahout.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5171911a2640e04e5d05c3c X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --bcaec5171911a2640e04e5d05c3c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 That means "If I Recall Correctly". It is an internet slang. See also http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:English_internet_slang On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Tevfik Aytekin wrote: > Sebastian, what is IIRC? > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Sebastian Schelter > wrote: > > IIRC the algorithm behind ParallelSGDFactorizer needs shared memory, > > which is not given in a shared-nothing environment. > > > > > > On 07.09.2013 19:08, Tevfik Aytekin wrote: > >> Hi, > >> There seems to be no Hadoop implementation of ParallelSGDFactorizer. > >> ALSWRFactorizer has a Hadoop implementation. > >> > >> ParallelSGDFactorizer (since it is based on stochastic gradient > >> descent) is much faster than ALSWRFactorizer. > >> > >> I don't know Hadoop much. But it seems to me that a Hadoop > >> implementation of ParallelSGDFactorizer will also be much faster than > >> the Hadoop implementaion of ALSWRFactorizer. > >> > >> Is there a specific reason for why there is no Hadoop implementation > >> of ParallelSGDFactorizer? Is it because since Hadoop operations are > >> already slow the slowness of ALSWRFactorizer does not matter much. Or > >> is it simply because nobody has implemented it yet? > >> > >> Thanks > >> Tevfik > >> > > > --bcaec5171911a2640e04e5d05c3c--