I agree, at this point we could have a RandomWalkVertex with edge values, and a "null-edged" vertex for the PR benchmarks. We make everybody happy and avoid code duplication.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Alessandro Presta <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Gianmarco, > > Yes, there will be more efficient implementations. > In the redesign I'm working on (GIRAPH-528), there will be only one Vertex > class and edge storage is delegated to a VertexEdges class. > So far I'm adding some generic implementations (ByteArrayEdges, > ArrayListEdges, HashMapEdges) that work for all types, and some optimized > ones (LongDoubleArrayEdges, LongNullArrayEdges). > > Do you specifically need edge values to be float while the other types are > double? > It seems to me it would make sense to change RandomWalkVertex to use > double edge values instead, and avoid code duplication (i.e. adding a > LongFloatArrayEdges that's basically the same). We're not Trove after all. > Makes sense? > > Thanks for the feedback, > > Alessandro > > > On 2/28/13 1:54 AM, "Gianmarco De Francisci Morales" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >Maybe the specific implementation can be thrown away, but personally I > >feel > >very strongly for the need of a good LongDoubleFloatDouble vertex. > >It's the base for any serious random walk algorithm. > > > >I would call for a refactoring rather than a removal. > > > >Just my 2c. > > > >Cheers, > > > >-- > >Gianmarco > > > > > >On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Alessandro Presta > ><[email protected]>wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Does anyone feel strongly for LongDoubleFloatDoubleVertex? > >> Reasons why I think it should be removed: > >> > >> 1. Right now it's incorrect (returns target vertex id as edge value). > >> 2. Iteration will always be inefficient, since the underlying Mahout > >> open-addressing hash map implementation doesn't provide iterators. It > >> provides a way to copy the keys and values to external arrays/lists. > >> 3. It's the only reason why we have Mahout as a dependency. > >> > >> I think we should strive to provide model implementations that are > >>generic > >> and/or extremely efficient. This one satisfies neither. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Alessandro > >> > > -- Claudio Martella [email protected]
