Yeah. But, I am wondering how the testcases succeeded? I ran them using "mvn 
clean install" command.

Thanks
Pallavi

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Eastman [mailto:j...@windwardsolutions.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 9:56 AM
To: mahout-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (MAHOUT-99) Improving speed of KMeans

The Synthetic Control kMeans job calls the Canopy job to build its initial 
clusters as is commonly done. If the kMeans record format was changed and the 
Canopy not changed accordingly, then everything would still compile but there 
would be a mismatch when the kMeans mapper tried to read in the clusters.

Jeff


Richard Tomsett (JIRA) wrote:
>     [ 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-99?page=com.atlassian.jir
> a.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12683
> 252#action_12683252 ]
>
> Richard Tomsett commented on MAHOUT-99:
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Yup, just downloaded the latest trunk and run with Hadoop 0.19.1 and I get 
> the same error on the Synthetic Control example. It seems to be because the 
> new KMeans code uses a KeyValueLineRecordReader object to read the input 
> cluster centres from the canopy clustering output, but the canopy clustering 
> job outputs a SequenceFile (and the old KMeans code read in a SequenceFile 
> for the cluster centres). Think that's the problem at least, I''ll have a 
> quick play.
>
>   
>> Improving speed of KMeans
>> -------------------------
>>
>>                 Key: MAHOUT-99
>>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-99
>>             Project: Mahout
>>          Issue Type: Improvement
>>          Components: Clustering
>>            Reporter: Pallavi Palleti
>>            Assignee: Grant Ingersoll
>>             Fix For: 0.1
>>
>>         Attachments: MAHOUT-99-1.patch, Mahout-99.patch, 
>> MAHOUT-99.patch
>>
>>
>> Improved the speed of KMeans by passing only cluster ID from mapper to 
>> reducer. Previously, whole Cluster Info as formatted s`tring was being sent.
>> Also removed the implicit assumption of Combiner runs only once approach and 
>> the code is modified accordingly so that it won't create a bug when combiner 
>> runs zero or more than once.
>>     
>
>   

Reply via email to