Hi Sean, then I'll spare benchmarking the patch you sent, I'm glad you like the original version of the code.
Sebastian Btw: our discussion here also helps me fill the pages of my diploma thesis with interesting stuff ;) Sean Owen schrieb: > Nah, scratch that too. The simple version of this idea doesn't scale, > and I was unable to get the current version to run at all > significantly differently in speed. It's just good as-is. > > Now there is a non-distributed similarity implementation that matches > what this does, which was the original question. > > Sean > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Actually scratch that patch I sent over. I see the trick now that >> makes the existing approach quite good. I think I can make a version >> that preserves that trick and still streamlines the processing. I will >> benchmark and report back if successful. >> >> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Sorry, typo, that's what I meant. yes the difference isn't *that* large! >>> It may be worse in practice since you have a few users with very many prefs. >>> It may also be beneficial to simply have one fewer phase and throw >>> around less data. I will also try to benchmark since really that's the >>> only way to know. >>> >>>
