I don't think sequentiality is a requirement in the case i am working on. However, let me peek at the code first. I am guessing it is some form of a near-perfect hash, in which case it may not be possible to read it in parts at all. Which would be bad, indeed. I would need to find a completely alternative input format then to overcome my case.
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't thikn that sequentiality part of the contract. > RandomAccessSparseVectors are likely to > produce disordered values when serialized, I think. > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I will have to look at details of VectorWritable to make sure all cases > are > > covered (I only took a very brief look so far). But as long as it is able > > to > > produce elements in order of index increase, push technique will > certainly > > work for most algorithms (and in some cases, notably with SSVD, even if > it > > produces the data in non-sequential way, it would work too ) . > > >
