> > > - How about moving label bindings out to NamedVector? > - How about similar restructuring of matrices? > I dont know what the correct choice is here. It depends on whether we should keep a single written representation for all vectors on disk. Then an optional field could be there for name
- And how about not writing > "org.apache.mahout.math.RandomAccessSparseVectorWritable" whenever > VectorWritable does its wrapping.. I think making the package name and > "Writable" implicit is perhaps worth the loss of generality. > Agreed. If we fix the on-disk representation.. The only need is a bool which says whether the dimensions are stored in sorted manner and another bool which tells whether the vector is dense. So, dense vector and sequential access vector could be deserialized in a faster manner(if the conditions are good). But we keep the same written format for all vectors and say what format we want to deserialize the vector into explicitly to the algorithm Robin