You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on Jun 30, 2021. It is now read-only.
The perf utility reported a bottleneck in this area, where it's waiting for the
'target' variable to be finalized. By computing the next value of target early,
overall performance is increased by about 3% on a small (128MB) training file.
add next_target next to target in the variable list.
Then in the two negative sampling blocks:
...
if (d == 0) {
target = word;
label = 1;
next_random = next_random * (unsigned long long)25214903917 + 11;
next_target = table[(next_random >> 16) % table_size];
} else {
target = next_target;
if (target == 0) target = next_random % (vocab_size - 1) + 1;
next_random = next_random * (unsigned long long)25214903917 + 11;
next_target = table[(next_random >> 16) % table_size];
if (target == word) continue;
label = 0;
}
...
Original issue reported on code.google.com by chad.p...@gmail.com on 22 Jul 2015 at 6:40
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
chad.p...@gmail.comon 22 Jul 2015 at 6:40