Hi Gabor,

the vertex-centric iteration implements the Pregel model, according to
which a vertex is "active" during a superstep only when there are messages
for this vertex. So, the behavior you are seeing is intended, yes :-)

The logic behind this is that a vertex value gets updated by performing
some computation on the received messages. Thus, there would be no vertex
update if there are no new messages.

If you want to keep a vertex active even when there are no messages sent to
it, you could have it send a dummy message to itself.
However, if your algorithm requires all vertices to be active in all
supersteps, then you are probably looking for a bulk iteration instead.

Since you're mentioning that you're implementing triangle counting, note
that with Gelly you don't need to implement this as an iterative algorithm.
Actually, it is probably a bad idea.
In a system like Giraph, you don't have another choice because everything
has to follow the Pregel model and be expressed as a series of supersteps.
However, triangle counting is not an iterative algorithm; it consists of
well-defined steps which you can express with the neighborhood and join
functions of Gelly.

Finally, you might want to take a look at the Flink examples. There are two
implementations of triangle count there :-)

Cheers,
-Vasia.


On 16 April 2015 at 21:44, Hermann Gábor <reckone...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I am implementing a simple triangle counting example for a workshop with
> vertex-centric iteration and I found that the updateVertex method only gets
> called if there are new messages for that vertex. Is it the expected
> behavior?
>
> I know that the iteration should stop for the given vertex when the we
> don't change the vertex value but (at least in my case) it would be useful
> if the updateVertex got called with an empty message iterator. I guess
> receiving zero messages might have a meaning in other cases too, and the
> user would like to update the vertex value.
> Does changing the current behavior make sense?
>
> Cheers,
> Gabor
>

Reply via email to