On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yeah. The stuck point for me is page-rankish-finding stationary > distributions and extremely popular ALS based stuff. We've beaten the heck > out of it a year ago and Sebastian conclusively stated Giraph ALS knocks > the socks off MR version. Add to that a bisect search for a good > This keeps being said, but, I thought Sebastian just said that the M/R version he mentioned being much slower was a different version, deleted from this project? See my other email. The current version is similar to the one I just benchmarked, and that appeared to be about as fast as GraphLab (still not clear if the same amount of work is being compared though). This matches my hunch that these things are about the same, modulo some extra disk I/O, which is not most of the runtime. I point it out in case this is underpinning many people's logic for rebuilding a bunch of stuff because it will be a *lot* faster. Surely some stuff can be done more naturally in a graph paradigm but not everything, or most? I'm worried about the conclusion because of cases like this.
