[petsc-users] Why does CHOLMOD solution time differs between PETSc and MATLAB?

[Victor Magri]

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> Performance for the various orderings can be slightly "counter" intuitive
> if all you count is flops


Yes. As you pointed, there are more variables to analyze besides flops.

Did you run with the default PETSc Cholesky? I'd be interested in seeing
> how long that takes.


I've just run with the default cholesky, it took about 30 min for executing
 (See attached).  A brief summary:

MatCholFctrSym         1 1.0 1.0375e+03 1.0 0.00e+00 0.0 0.0e+00 0.0e+00
0.0e+00 65  0  0  0  0  65  0  0  0  0     0
MatCholFctrNum         1 1.0 5.4339e+02 1.0 1.00e+06 1.0 0.0e+00 0.0e+00
0.0e+00 34  0  0  0  0  34  0  0  0  0     0
PCSetUp                     1 1.0 1.5810e+03 1.0 1.00e+06 1.0 0.0e+00
0.0e+00 0.0e+00 99  0  0  0  0  99  0  0  0  0     0

The symbolic and numeric Cholesky factorization are taking too long.

Victor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20141124/7656cd0d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: petsc_natural.dat
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 13730 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20141124/7656cd0d/attachment-0001.obj>