It looks like your results should probably be fairly dense in the end, right? So you should be accumulating SparseVectors on a DenseVector output, at least... but this should only be a small speedup, not a lower complexity... as you say, you're already taking advantage of sparseness in the sums...
I need to dig in and try this myself tonight or tomorrow night... On Dec 13, 2009 5:12 AM, "Sean Owen" <[email protected]> wrote: In my particular case, I just need "Scale" instead of "PlusWithScale", and that can take advantage of sparseness. My (er, Ted's) current approach is to sum SparseVectors. This takes advantage of sparseness already. Am I missing why a Scale/PlusWithScale implementation, when using sparseness, would be notably faster? On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Jake Mannix <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009...
