I use the option ?-mat_pastix_verbose 1 to print the Pastix
factorization information. You are right. The sparser one actually has
more Number of nonzeros (with fill-in) and Number of operations (LU),
thus takes longer to factorize. Thanks.
Xiangdong
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Jed Brown wrote
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Barry Smith wrote:
>
> On Dec 9, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Xiangdong Liang wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I am solving Ax=b with sparse direct solver Pastix. I have two
>> equivalent A's (upto these zero entries): A1 and A2. A1 is generated
>> with ignor_zero_entries and
Hello everyone,
I am solving Ax=b with sparse direct solver Pastix. I have two
equivalent A's (upto these zero entries): A1 and A2. A1 is generated
with ignor_zero_entries and A2 is without this option. For example A1
has 9 millions nonzeros, while A2 has 10 millions zeros. When I solve
them with
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Xiangdong Liang wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Barry Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 9, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Xiangdong Liang wrote:
> >
> >> Hello everyone,
> >>
> >> I am solving Ax=b with sparse direct solver Pastix. I have two
> >> equivalent A's (upto these
On Dec 9, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Xiangdong Liang wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am solving Ax=b with sparse direct solver Pastix. I have two
> equivalent A's (upto these zero entries): A1 and A2. A1 is generated
> with ignor_zero_entries and A2 is without this option. For example A1
> has 9 millions
No, a different ordering will be computed, and the ordering with the
sparser matrix could even lead to more fill.
On Dec 9, 2011 4:13 PM, "Xiangdong Liang" wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Barry Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 9, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Xiangdong Liang wrote:
> >
> >> Hello everyo
