[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [igraph] 'decompose.graph' versus 'clusters'
From: |
Gabor Csardi |
Subject: |
Re: [igraph] 'decompose.graph' versus 'clusters' |
Date: |
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:27:17 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) |
Oh, that is very good, I believe that the cutoff=5 estimation must
be already very close to the real value in most real graphs
(real graph=diameter is small, so all shortest paths are short).
Did you try to compare cutoff=4 and cutoff=5 results? If they are
about the same that is a good sign.
Gabor
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 08:23:04AM -0700, David Hunkins wrote:
> And by the way, betweenness.estimate(G,cutoff=5) worked on my weakly
> connected graph G with 2M vertices and 2M edges. It only took two hours
> on the 'fast' EC2 machine. Thanks again,
>
> Dave
>
> David Hunkins
> address@hidden
> im: davehunkins
> 415 336-8965
>
[...]
--
Csardi Gabor <address@hidden> UNIL DGM
Re: [igraph] 'decompose.graph' versus 'clusters', David Hunkins, 2008/07/22