[GiNaC-list] matrix::solve()-related problems
vmagerya at gmail.com
Wed Jan 31 17:42:10 CET 2018
On 01/31/2018 12:26 PM, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
> Could you guys please re-test against current git HEAD? The crashes you
> reported should be fixed and timings should have improved.
The crashes have vanished in my test case. Well done.
> Based on this, it may now make more sense to compare algorithms for
> solving linear equations.
With today's commits, the same toy benchmark gives these timings (with 5
measurements per matrix size):
matrix gauss time/bareiss time
size average min max
2x2 1.261 1.181 1.313
3x3 1.569 1.385 1.661
4x4 1.549 1.490 1.647
5x5 1.629 1.598 1.692
6x6 1.409 1.191 1.713
7x7 1.014 0.742 1.335
8x8 0.843 0.385 1.542
9x9 0.414 0.172 0.599
10x10 0.184 0.061 0.622
11x11 0.096 0.029 0.210
So, Bareiss performs much better than previously.
Returning to the previous topic of switching to Gauss elimination for
sparse matrices: my goal here was to demonstrate that on dense matrices
Gauss elimination is at least comparable to Bareiss. I think this point
should be uncontroversial now.
More information about the GiNaC-list