Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
IVF-Flat: make adaptive-centers behavior optional #1019
IVF-Flat: make adaptive-centers behavior optional #1019
Changes from 1 commit
5c5f0ac
5981d55
b07cc1e
9816c25
fa16485
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Rather than making this an option on the index params object itself, why not just make it an optional argument on the
extend()
function? That would enable the user to determine whether it should be done outside of the creation of the index. It's really not an index option, but a design detail based on a specific use-case / usage-pattern.I was thinking of something like
extend(....., update_centers=false);
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Although I see it sounds more intuitive to keep the parameter in the
extend
, I'd disagree for two reasons:centers()
must always be up-to-date. Hence, we cannot allow doing an "updating"extend
after a "non-updating" one. Also from the logical point of view, this would break both alternative invariants (centers are neither constant nor up-to-date).build
gets all parameters through the struct,extend
never accepts extra parameters (and gets them from the index). Besides, thebuild
function would need to takeupdate_centers
as well, because it optionally callsextend
.