Its not aimed at 0.3 per say. Right now its evolving with the code. For. eg. the quality factor is something that will go in there. I keep updating the code with the latest changes and so does Sean. There isnt much that got affected by your latest commit though(it compiles). Though I haven't fully tested the code with the dataset after the commit, something I plan to do soon.
Robin On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Jeff Eastman <j...@windwardsolutions.com>wrote: > I also wonder how much my recent clustering changes have affected the > examples in the clustering sections. I know the book is currently aimed at > Mahout 0.3 but users trying the examples with trunk may be frustrated by the > recent changes in file naming. Do the examples exist in an unannotated > version somewhere that I could get working again on trunk? > > On 4/23/10 9:10 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > >> Good eye, this was fixed in the manuscript a while ago. >> >> I will ping Manning to re-publish Chapters 1-6 since a lot of small >> updates have happened since then. >> >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Jeff Eastman >> <j...@windwardsolutions.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Section 4.5.1 says: >>> "The third line shows how it is based on item-item similarities, not >>> user-user similarities as before. The algorithms are similar, but not >>> entirely symmetric. They do have notably different properties. For >>> instance, >>> the running time of an item-based recommender scales up as the number of >>> items increases, whereas a user-based recommender’s running time goes up >>> as >>> the number of users increases. >>> >>> This suggests one reason that you might choose an item-based recommender: >>> if >>> the number of users is relatively low compared to the number of items, >>> the >>> performance advantage could be significant." >>> >>> Shouldn't the second paragraph be? >>> >>> "This suggests one reason that you might choose an item-based >>> recommender: >>> if the number of users is relatively *high* compared to the number of >>> items, >>> the performance advantage could be significant." >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
