On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Gilles
wrote:
> Sorry, hit wrong key...
>
> On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:41:21 +0200, Gilles wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:28:54 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Just finished the updated of the sources to address all
Sorry, hit wrong key...
On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:41:21 +0200, Gilles wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:28:54 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
Hi,
Just finished the updated of the sources to address all comments
from
MATH-1371,
attached updated sources.
BTW, tried to commit feature branch directly to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:28:54 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
Hi,
Just finished the updated of the sources to address all comments from
MATH-1371,
attached updated sources.
BTW, tried to commit feature branch directly to the remote, looks
like I
need a user or
write access in order to being able
Hi,
Just finished the updated of the sources to address all comments from
MATH-1371,
attached updated sources.
BTW, tried to commit feature branch directly to the remote, looks like I
need a user or
write access in order to being able to do it.
Best regards,
Artem Barger.
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2016 03:10:20 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
>
>>
>>>
> Yes, you can parallelize it, though it will cancel several
> optimizations
>
I've added.
In fact you can partition the input
On Tue, 31 May 2016 03:10:20 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
Yes, you can parallelize it, though it will cancel several
optimizations
I've added.
In fact you can partition the input according to number of threads
you'd
like to use
and make each thread to take care of relevant data chunk.
I
>
>>>
>>> Yes, you can parallelize it, though it will cancel several optimizations
>> I've added.
>> In fact you can partition the input according to number of threads you'd
>> like to use
>> and make each thread to take care of relevant data chunk.
>>
>> I guess it will increase performance, not
On Tue, 31 May 2016 02:42:03 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Gilles
wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 01:28:48 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
Hi,
I've used out of the box current KMeansPlusPlusClusterer
implementation
provided by CM, however
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2016 01:28:48 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've used out of the box current KMeansPlusPlusClusterer implementation
>> provided by CM, however saw that it doesn't scales well on large data
On Tue, 31 May 2016 01:28:48 +0300, Artem Barger wrote:
Hi,
I've used out of the box current KMeansPlusPlusClusterer
implementation
provided by CM, however saw that it doesn't scales well on large data
volumes. One of the proposals to improve current implementation was
submitted in JIRA-1330
10 matches
Mail list logo