From: Arkadiy Vertleyb (vertleyb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-17 19:00:24
"Calum Grant" <calum_at_[hidden]> wrote
> The problem with this data is that it contains a lot of duplicates. If
> I cluster the cities into 5103 clusters, I get 47ms. On the other hand
> if I don't cluster them, then I get 4.1s. The expensive part is
> building the index of indexing on distances. The results are rather odd
> - the 500 locations I get have 991 neighbours.
This sounds like a correct result -- can I see the first 50 items?
Regards,
Arkadiy