On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 8, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Jake Mannix wrote: > > > Hey all, > > One question I'm wrestling with is whether we should have > > disk-backed (local or HDFS) vectors and matrices transparently > > implement Vector and Matrix, or whether this will lead to confusion > > and trick people into treating them in the same way they think of > > in-memory versions (ie think they can do lots of random access > > operations which just thrash and aren't performant). > > > > Any thoughts? > > I'd say add the disk backed ones and we'll worry about education > separately.
+1 > Perhaps it's possible for the vector to keep track of > thrashing and spit out warnings. Either that or you override the > random accessors on the file-based ones to throw exceptions so that > it fails early for users. The first options gives users more freedom about what to do with the implementation - while the latter one probably saves us a few mails about the implementation being sooooo slow... I'd be fine to go with either option. Isabel
