Hi Sean,
then I'll spare benchmarking the patch you sent, I'm glad you like the
original version of the code.
Sebastian
Btw: our discussion here also helps me fill the pages of my diploma
thesis with interesting stuff ;)
Sean Owen schrieb:
Nah, scratch that too. The simple version of this idea doesn't scale,
and I was unable to get the current version to run at all
significantly differently in speed. It's just good as-is.
Now there is a non-distributed similarity implementation that matches
what this does, which was the original question.
Sean
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Sean Owen sro...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually scratch that patch I sent over. I see the trick now that
makes the existing approach quite good. I think I can make a version
that preserves that trick and still streamlines the processing. I will
benchmark and report back if successful.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Sean Owen sro...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, typo, that's what I meant. yes the difference isn't *that* large!
It may be worse in practice since you have a few users with very many prefs.
It may also be beneficial to simply have one fewer phase and throw
around less data. I will also try to benchmark since really that's the
only way to know.
