Actually I was referring to Sebastian's. I haven't seen you committed
anything to SamplingCandidateItemsStrategy. Can you tell me in which class
the change appears?

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote:

> Are you referring to my patch, MAHOUT-910?
>
> It does let you specify a hard cap, really -- if you place a limit of X,
> then at most X^2 item-item associations come out. Before you could not
> bound the result, really, since one user could rate a lot of items.
>
> I think it's slightly more efficient and unbiased as users with few ratings
> will not have their ratings sampled out, and all users are equally likely
> to be sampled out.
>
> What do you think?
> Yes you could easily add a secondary cap though as a final filter.
>
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Daniel Zohar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Combining the latest commits with my
> > optimized-SamplingCandidateItemsStrategy (http://pastebin.com/6n9C8Pw1)
> > I achieved satisfying results. All the queries were under one second.
> >
> > Sebastian, I took a look at your patch and I think it's more practical
> than
> > the current SamplingCandidateItemsStrategy, however it still doesn't put
> a
> > strict cap on the number of possible item IDs like my implementation
> does.
> > Perhaps there is room for both implementations?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Sebastian Schelter <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I created a jira to supply a non-distributed counterpart of the
> > > sampling that is done in the distributed item similarity computation:
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-914
> > >
> > >
> > > 2011/12/2 Sean Owen <[email protected]>:
> > > > For your purposes, it's LogLikelihoodSimilarity. I made similar
> changes
> > > in
> > > > other files. Ideally, just svn update to get all recent changes.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Daniel Zohar <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Sean, can you tell me which files have you committed the changes to?
> > > Thanks
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to