[Spambayes] Re: caching stuff
Tim Stone - Four Stones Expressions
Fri Nov 22 23:02:42 2002
11/22/2002 3:51:16 PM, "T. Alexander Popiel" <email@example.com> wrote:
>In message: <621ZJEWSC7YV2YB6GAPJPJNLZX7454IG.3dde9f4f@riven>
> <tim@fourstonesExpressions.com> writes:
>>Well, if the baseian prob changes even if the ham and spam ratios don't,
>>of course the caching scheme is bad. But I certainly don't see that in the
>>code that I changed. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place...
>In the probability computation (which I'm reading from
>update_probabilities in an old image):
> prob = spamratio / (hamratio + spamratio)
> n = hamcount + spamcount
> prob = (StimesX + n * prob) / (S + n)
>Here we see that prob is based on both the ratios and the
>raw counts; thus, they're also based on nham & nspam
>(because to get the same non-zero ratio, you'd have to
>have a different raw count).
I get it now... the larger the raw counts, the more weight is given to this
So my cache mechanism is fatally flawed.
>There's normally a hulking huge comment in the middle of
>the code snippet above - that may be making it harder to
More information about the Spambayes