On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 3:54 PM Jorge Nin <jorge...@mit.edu> wrote:
> Hi, > I was playing around with a self compiled version and, and a the Conda > binary of Petsc on the same problem, on my M1 Mac. > Interestingly I found that the Conda binary solves the problem 2-3 times > slower vs the self compiled version. (For context I’m using the petsc4py > python interface) > > I’ve attached two log views to show the comparison. > > I was mostly curious about the possible cause for this. > All the time is in the LU numeric factorization. I don't know if your matrix is sparse or dense. I am guessing it is dense and different LAPACK implementations are linked. If it is sparse, then the compiler options are different between builds, but I would be surprised if it made this much difference. Thanks, Matt > I was also curious how I could use my own compiled version of PETSc in my > Conda install? > > > Best, > Jorge > > -- 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/ <http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/>