[petsc-users] Some questions regarding VecNest type.

Jed Brown jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov
Wed Oct 12 14:34:40 CDT 2011

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 14:08, Vijay S. Mahadevan <vijay.m at gmail.com> wrote:

> > vecnest.c:639 ?
> Oops. Must have had a typo in my search.
> > What do you mean by multiple indices? The union of multiple constituent
> > index sets? You could make a hierarchical VecNest if you really want that
> > layout, otherwise we need to find an inexpensive way to handle exotic
> index
> > sets without losing structure.
> Yes. I meant the union of indexes. i.e, if parent_vec = {child1,
> child2, .. childn}, then VecGetSubVector([1,2]) would then return
> subparent_vec={child1, child2} ? Not sure if I would call that exotic
> but I feel this is natural since I think of the vector as truly
> nested.

Deciding when to have a deep hierarchy and when to flatten or reorder for
locality is something that would be hard for the library to do
automatically. You can always put a VecNest inside if you want to walk the
tree that way. Solving the subset matching problem efficiently is tricky,
but if someone wants to write support for that, we can do what you want. A
different approach is to make an ISNest which would make the matching
problem easier.

> If you are expecting the IS to contain [1..len(child1),
> len(child1)+1..len(child1)+len(child2)], then the parent_vec isn't
> truly nested but rather a regular parallel vector. Aren't these the
> distinctions between -vec_type nest and otherwise ?

You can do VecNest that way, in which case you can do somewhat more flexible
ghost updates and such. But VecNest will also let you have the two "blocks"
be interlaced in the global ordering, but actually stored contiguously. I
think this is rarely a good way to implement things, but you can do it.

> This is also what
> I gather from your explanation below. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> > Since you can write your
> > software so that this choice is a run-time option, I don't see a good
> > rationale for choosing an interface that only does one thing.
> Agreed. As I mentioned earlier, I originally did have both the options
> but only compile time since I was using petsc-ext.

How did you get a monolithic matrix that you could hit with a direct solver
when you were using petsc-ext?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20111012/b4e5c2e4/attachment.htm>

More information about the petsc-users mailing list