Re: Questions about the Compositions of Execution Time

Hi Mingyang, just out of curiosity, I did a quick experiment with the discussed alternative formulation for scenario 1 with the following script R = read($1) S = read($2) FK = read($3) wS = Rand(rows=ncol(S), cols=1, min=0, max=1, pdf="uniform") wR = Rand(rows=ncol(R), cols=1, min=0, max=1,

Table

Hi, I was trying to understand what the "table" function does. In the documents, it says: "Returns the contingency table of two vectors A and B. The resulting table F consists of max(A) rows and max(B) columns." Suppose I've 2 matrix A and B of this form: A = matrix(1, 1, 10) B =

Vector of Matrix

Hi, In R (as well as in python), we can store values list within list. Say I've 2 matrix with different dimensions, x <- matrix(1:10, ncol=2) y <- matrix(1:5, ncol=1) FinalList <- c(x, y) Is it possible to do such form in systemML? I'm not looking for cbind or rbind. Thank you! Arijit

Re: GSoC : Getting started contributions

Hi Krishna, What Arvind is describing is in essence a large part of you GSoC proposal. You should work on this if and when your proposal gets approved. (we don't know whether it has been approved and even if we did, we couldn't say). In the meantime, I encourage you to play around with SystemML,

Re: Questions about the Compositions of Execution Time

That's awesome! Can I take it as when utilizing these super-sparse permutation matrices, it is usually better to store them as column vectors and then dynamically expand them via table()? Currently, all such FK matrices are stored as sparse matrices in binary format. Also, as pmm operator only

Re: Randomly Selecting rows from a dataframe

you can take for example a 1% sample of rows via a permutation matrix (specifically selection matrix) as follows I = (rand(rows=nrow(X), cols=1, min=0, max=1) <= 0.01); P = removeEmpty(target=diag(I), margin="rows"); Xsample = P %*% X; or via removeEmpty and selection vector I =

Re: GSoC : Getting started contributions

Thanks Nakul, Arvind and Matthias for your suggestions. I am currently playing around with System-ML, will also take a look at SYSTEMML-546 + plan to run some performance tests on my local system this weekend. Regards, Krishna On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Nakul Jindal

Re: Table

Thank you Matthias for your answer! I'm still not very clear about this concept of "table". I'll try to explore it further in case I get better understanding. Thank you! From: Matthias Boehm Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 12:17:23 AM

Re: Vector of Matrix

no, right now, we don't support structs or complex objects. Regards, Matthias On 4/21/2017 4:17 AM, arijit chakraborty wrote: Hi, In R (as well as in python), we can store values list within list. Say I've 2 matrix with different dimensions, x <- matrix(1:10, ncol=2) y <- matrix(1:5,

Re: Table

The input vectors to table are interpreted as row indexes and column indexes, respectively. Without weights, we add 1, otherwise the corresponding weight value to the output cells. So in your example you have constant row indexes of 1 but a seq(1,10) for column indexes and hence you get a

Jenkins build is back to normal : SystemML-DailyTest #943

See

Re: function default parameters

well, for arguments passed into dml scripts there is of course ifdef($b, 2) but for functions there is indeed no good support. At runtime level we still support default parameters for scalar arguments at the tail of the parameter list but I guess at one point the corresponding parser support was

function default parameters

Is there a way to set default parameter values using DML? I believe both R and Python offer this capability. The only solution I could come up with using DML is to pass in a variable that is NaN and cast this to a string and use this string in an if conditional statement. addone =

Re: function default parameters

BTW, that is assuming our algorithms have been converted to functions. Deron On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Deron Eriksson wrote: > Thank you Matthias. I highly agree with your idea about having a default > specification similar to R WRT the function signatures for

Re: function default parameters

Thank you Matthias. I highly agree with your idea about having a default specification similar to R WRT the function signatures for default values. This becomes a significant issue for some of our algorithms, where they might take in 10 arguments but default values are should typically be used

Re: function default parameters

Yeah we should adopt the syntax that R and Python both use, in which default arguments are defined in the function definition. Primitive types such as ints and strings can be set in the function definition, and more complex types such as matrices can simply use a null value as the default in