Hi Nakul,
+1
I think having some clear characteristic to distinguish operations that
only operate locally is a great idea. Otherwise, how would a user know that
these operations are only local and not distributed? Adding this naming
convention for local operations sounds reasonable to me so that we don't
anger users who expect an operation to be distributed when in actuality it
only currently runs locally.
Deron
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Nakul Jindal <nakul02@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Imran was planning on implementing a distributed SVD as a DML bodied
> function.
> The algorithm is described in the paper titled "A Distributed and
> Incremental SVD Algorithm for Agglomerative Data Analysis on Large
> Networks" available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.07010.
>
> This algorithm requires the availability of a local SVD function, which we
> currently do not have in SystemML.
> Seeing as how there are other linear algebra functions (eigen, lu, qr,
> cholesky) in DML that reroute to Apache Common Math and only operate in
> standalone/CP mode, would it be ok to add "svd" to this set?
>
> Also, since these operations are local and not distributed and the
> documentation doesn't make it clear that these operations wont operate in
> distributed mode, would it make sense to rename them to "local_eigen",
> "local_qr", "local_cholesky", etc?
> Obviously, this change would go into the version after 0.11.
>
> I understand that the ideal solution to this problem is to have a
> distributed version of the aforementioned linear algebra routines, but for
> the time being, would it be ok to go ahead do the rename, while also
> introducing a "local_svd" ?
>
>
> Niketan, Berthold, Matthias, Sasha  Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Nakul Jindal
>
