On 01.11.2011 Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> FWIW, in Lucene, we do the following:
>
> [...]
For documentation purposes I added a summary of the discussion to our wiki
(including a disclaimer that we are still working on the draft):
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAHOUT/Downloads (Sectio
On 31.10.2011 Lance Norskog wrote:
> 6) Quick access to the online algorithms
>
> The servlet implementation in taste is simple. It should be possible to
> package a lot of the online algorithms in one big servlet. Call it " Mahout
> Online"?
Just a thought: Is that something that a) Mahout users
On 01.11.2011 Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> FWIW, in Lucene, we do the following:
>
> 1. All minor versions within a major release can read prior versions index
> within the same major release. That is, 3.4 can read a 3.3 index.
> However, 3.3 cannot read a 3.4 index. When a user reads a 3.3 index w
On 01.11.2011 Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> > I think the trend is away from an explicit version in serialized data and
> > toward systems like protobufs or avro which allow much more flexibility.
>
> +1
+1
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Nov 1, 2
On Nov 1, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> I think the trend is away from an explicit version in serialized data and
> toward systems like protobufs or avro which allow much more flexibility.
+1
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 1, 2011, at 5:09, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>> For th
I think the trend is away from an explicit version in serialized data and
toward systems like protobufs or avro which allow much more flexibility.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 1, 2011, at 5:09, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> For the most part this works and I would recommend we take similar steps.
On Nov 1, 2011, at 8:09 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> FWIW, in Lucene, we do the following:
>
> 1. All minor versions within a major release can read prior versions index
> within the same major release. That is, 3.4 can read a 3.3 index. However,
> 3.3 cannot read a 3.4 index. When a user r
FWIW, in Lucene, we do the following:
1. All minor versions within a major release can read prior versions index
within the same major release. That is, 3.4 can read a 3.3 index. However,
3.3 cannot read a 3.4 index. When a user reads a 3.3 index w/ 3.4, it is
silently upgraded to 3.4. I th
On 31.10.2011 Jeff Eastman wrote:
> I think users would benefit a lot by 1) to 3) and would be dismayed if we
> could not maintain data consistency between releases
> (maybe just point releases?).
Good point that I forgot to define in the original mail: Levels of back-compat
should depend on wh
I think users would benefit a lot by 1) to 3) and would be dismayed if we could
not maintain data consistency between releases (maybe just point releases?).
This could require us to build and ship migrating tools along with any releases
which change these formats.
4) and 5) are related and it i
6) Quick access to the online algorithms
The servlet implementation in taste is simple. It should be possible to
package a lot of the online algorithms in one big servlet. Call it " Mahout
Online"?
One problem here is that uploading and downloading data for each operation
is not practical. MO wou
2) Model formats
Proposal: a few common structures with higher-level conventions about how to
compose them.
.
For matrix data, the R "dataframe" is a time-tested format for dense
vectors, matrices and tensors. Something like this that also handles most
sparsity cases would allow ditching a lot of h
12 matches
Mail list logo
