[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-206?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12800271#action_12800271 ]
Sean Owen commented on MAHOUT-206: ---------------------------------- It all passes for me. I had to delete another instance of TestVectorWritable in utils -- does that make sense? I admit I still had patch problems here but thought I manually fixed them all. I can handle issues like copyright headers. > Separate and clearly label different SparseVector implementations > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: MAHOUT-206 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-206 > Project: Mahout > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Math > Affects Versions: 0.2 > Environment: all > Reporter: Jake Mannix > Assignee: Jake Mannix > Fix For: 0.3 > > Attachments: MAHOUT-206.patch, MAHOUT-206.patch, MAHOUT-206.patch > > > Shashi's last patch on MAHOUT-165 swapped out the int/double parallel array > impl of SparseVector for an OpenIntDoubleMap (hash-based) one. We actually > need both, as I think I've mentioned a gazillion times. > There was a patch, long ago, on MAHOUT-165, in which Ted had > OrderedIntDoubleVector, and OpenIntDoubleHashVector (or something to that > effect), and neither of them are called SparseVector. I like this, because > it forces people to choose what kind of SparseVector they want (and they > should: sparse is an optimization, and the client should make a conscious > decision what they're optimizing for). > We could call them RandomAccessSparseVector and SequentialAccessSparseVector, > to be really obvious. > But really, the important part is we have both. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.