[petsc-users] MatMatMul inefficient
Guido Margherita
margherita.guido at epfl.ch
Mon Feb 13 08:38:40 CST 2023
A is a sparse MATSEQAIJ, Q is dense.
Thanks,
Margherita
> Il giorno 13 feb 2023, alle ore 3:27 PM, knepley at gmail.com ha scritto:
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 9:21 AM Guido Margherita via petsc-users <petsc-users at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I realised that performing a matrix-matrix multiplication using the function MatMatMult it is not at all computationally efficient with respect to performing N times a matrix-vector multiplication with MatMul, being N the number of columns of the second matrix in the product.
> When I multiply I matrix A 46816 x 46816 to a matrix Q 46816 x 6, the MatMatMul function is indeed 6 times more expensive than 6 times a call to MatMul, when performed sequentially (0.04056 s vs 0.0062 s ). When the same code is run in parallel the gap grows even more, being10 times more expensive.
> Is there an explanation for it?
>
> So we can reproduce this, what kind of matrix is A? I am assuming that Q is dense.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
>
> t1 = MPI_Wtime()
> call MatMatMult(A,Q,MAT_INITIAL_MATRIX, PETSC_DEFAULT_REAL, AQ, ierr )
> t2 = MPI_Wtime()
> t_MatMatMul = t2-t1
>
> t_MatMul=0.0
> do j = 0, m-1
> call MatGetColumnVector(Q, q_vec, j,ierr)
>
> t1 = MPI_Wtime()
> call MatMult(A, q_vec, aq_vec, ierr)
> t2 = MPI_Wtime()
>
> t_MatMul = t_MatMul + t2-t1
> end do
>
> Thank you,
> Margherita Guido
>
>
>
> --
> What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead.
> -- Norbert Wiener
>
> https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/
More information about the petsc-users
mailing list