<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 02/08/2011 06:03 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTikK-Cn5EHmORzL6Ftnd+2qetJgOXbdirKRhUS6e@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 17:52, Klaus
Zimmermann <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:klaus.zimmermann@physik.uni-freiburg.de">klaus.zimmermann@physik.uni-freiburg.de</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div id=":xz">I agree. This is mostly because I didn't
understand the concepts so well at the time I wrote this
code and one of the reasons why I would like to refactor.<br>
In my case there should in principle be three output
vectors. All the facilities I have seen in petsc only deal
with a single output vector. Is this correct?<br>
Of course there is an obvious mapping, but I would prefer to
keep the vectors apart because that way it is easier to deal
with the parallel layout.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>Packing them together will give you better memory
performance. You can extract separate pieces with the VecStride
functions if you need it separate. If you have a really good
reason for storing them separately, petsc-dev has VecNest which
lets you treat several vectors as one, but some operations are
more expensive and I would not recommend using it for your
purposes.</div>
</blockquote>
Thanks for the info. I guess I'll have them interleaved then and
extract the components for the global calculations afterwards.<br>
</body>
</html>