Agree. Just don't want this to lead to the conclusion we *shouldn't* somehow help recommend good JVM settings or compile-time optimization. And I don't think, in the end, anyone is saying that.
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Ted Dunning<ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am sure that our Sparse Vector stuff is at least twice as slow as it > should be. > > My preliminary experiments indicate that we should be able to get within > about a factor of 2 of the speed of a DenseVector (ish). I am pretty sure > our current SparseVector is a long ways from there. Shashi's experience > indicates that replacing SV can give us a near doubling of overall > performance in some cases.
