Dear Xingcan,
no need to apologize, we are here to help :) You are always welcome to ask
questions / make suggestions.
Cheers,
-Vasia.
On 14 February 2017 at 09:35, Xingcan Cui wrote:
> Hi Vasia,
>
> sorry that I should have read the archive before (it's already been posted
> in FLINK-1526, th
Hi Vasia,
sorry that I should have read the archive before (it's already been posted
in FLINK-1526, though with an ugly format). Now everything's clear and I
think this thread should be closed here.
Thanks. @Vasia @Greg
Best,
Xingcan
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Vasiliki Kalavri wrote:
>
Hi Xingcan,
that's my bad, I was thinking of scatter-gather iterations in my previous
reply. You're right, in VertexCentricIteration a vertex is only active in
the next superstep if it has received at least one message in the current
superstep. Updating its value does not impact the activation. Th
Hi Greg,
I also found that in VertexCentricIteration.java, the message set is taken
as the workset while the vertex set is taken as the delta for solution set.
By doing like that, the setNewVertex method will not actually active a
vertex. In other words, if no message is generated (the workset is
Hi Greg,
Thanks for your attention.
It takes me a little time to read the old PR on FLINK-1885. Though
the VertexCentricIteration, as well as its related classes, has been
refactored, I understand what Markus want to achieve.
I am not sure if using a bulk iteration instead of a delta one could
e
Hi Xingcan,
FLINK-1885 looked into adding a bulk mode to Gelly's iterative models.
As an alternative you could implement your algorithm with Flink operators
and a bulk iteration. Most of the Gelly library is written with native
operators.
Greg
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 5:02 AM, Xingcan Cui wrote
Hi Vasia,
b) As I said, when some vertices finished their work in current phase, they
have nothing to do (no value updates, no message received, just like slept)
but to wait for other vertices that have not finished (the current phase)
yet. After that in the next phase, all the vertices should go
Hi Xingcan,
On 9 February 2017 at 18:16, Xingcan Cui wrote:
> Hi Vasia,
>
> thanks for your reply. It helped a lot and I got some new ideas.
>
> a) As you said, I did use the getPreviousIterationAggregate() method in
> preSuperstep() of the next superstep.
> However, if the (only?) global (aggre
Hi Vasia,
thanks for your reply. It helped a lot and I got some new ideas.
a) As you said, I did use the getPreviousIterationAggregate() method in
preSuperstep() of the next superstep.
However, if the (only?) global (aggregate) results can not be guaranteed to
be consistency, what should we
do w
Hi Xingcan,
On 7 February 2017 at 10:10, Xingcan Cui wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I got some question about the vertex-centric iteration in Gelly.
>
> a) It seems the postSuperstep method is called before the superstep
> barrier (I got different aggregate values of the same superstep in this
> method).
Hi all,
I got some question about the vertex-centric iteration in Gelly.
a) It seems the postSuperstep method is called before the superstep
barrier (I got different aggregate values of the same superstep in this
method). Is this a bug? Or the design is just like that?
b) There is not setHalt m
11 matches
Mail list logo
