I think it would be good to have more basic operators like union or difference, as long as they have an efficient distributed implementation and are plausibly useful.
If they can be written in terms of the existing GraphX API, it would be best to put them into GraphOps to keep the core GraphX implementation small. The `mask` operation should actually be in GraphOps -- it's only in GraphImpl for historical reasons. On the other hand, `subgraph` needs to be in GraphImpl for performance: it accesses EdgeRDDImpl#filter(epred, vpred), which can't be a public EdgeRDD method because its semantics rely on an implementation detail (vertex replication). Ankur <http://www.ankurdave.com/> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Tarek Auel <tarek.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Someone proposed in a Jira issue to implement new graph operations. Sean > Owen recommended to check first with the mailing list, if this is > interesting or not. > > So I would like to know, if it is interesting for GraphX to implement the > operators like: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_operations and/or > http://techieme.in/complex-graph-operations/ > > If yes, should they be integrated into GraphImpl (like mask, subgraph > etc.) or as external library? My feeling is that they are similar to mask. > Because of consistency they should be part of the graph implementation > itself. > > What do you guys think? I really would like to bring GraphX forward and > help to implement some of these. > > Looking forward to hear your opinions > Tarek > >
