There was a memory leak in flatzinc. It's now fixed in the trunk, I tried your example and it seems to work fine.
As Christian said, FlatZinc in the trunk uses a different search heuristic if you don't specify the search in the model, so the behaviour may still be slightly different. Cheers, Guido On 27/02/2013, at 7:37 AM, Mohamed Rezgui <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I tried also with cmake in 3.7.3 compilation and I have the same thing. > So, in your opinion, is it better to remove some instances in my benchmarks > or to use 3.7.3 version ? > > Best Regards, > Mohamed REZGUI > > 2013/2/26 Christian Schulte <[email protected]> > Hi, > > > > I just tried myself and there is indeed a big bug somewhere. It appears to be > in the flatzinc stuff and not only due to the branching, one can see that by > the difference in number of nodes explored per second (it looks it also has a > memory leak of epic proportions and prints random messages on the screen). I > checked the base Gecode stuff and there everything is fine, the trunk is in > most cases slightly faster. > > > > But as said, it’s the trunk ;-) > > > > Cheers > > Christian > > > > -- > > Christian Schulte, www.ict.kth.se/~cschulte/ > > > > From: Mohamed Rezgui [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:49 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [gecode-users] Problem with rev13418 performances > > > > Hi Victor, > > > > thank you, I dit it but no speed up come. As Christian Schulte says : it > rather the default strategy is bad. > > I hope the new version (4.0) comes soon ^^. > > > > Thank you for your attention ^^ > > Best regards, > > Mohamed REZGUI > > > > 2013/2/26 [email protected] <[email protected]> > > CMake supports different build types, make sure that you use the Release one > to enable optimizations and disable asserts and debug info. You can do it at > configuration time with the following command: > > > > cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release > > > > HTH, > > Victor > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Mohamed Rezgui <[email protected]> wrote: > > OK so I will work with gecode 3.7.3. > > > > I just compile the revision with cmake and I use gecode 3.7.3 from download > section of the official website. > > I will see the flags used in compilation. > > > > Thank you for all ^^ > > Best Regards, > > Mohamed REZGUI > > > > 2013/2/26 Christian Schulte <[email protected]> > > That's what happens when you use the trunk, you should never, because, yes, > it is the trunk and not a release ;-) > > > > The difference is easy to explain though. The instance you have chosen does > not have a search annotation in it, so Gecode picks some default search > (which for this type of problems is a desaster anyway). And we just changed > the default search behavior for the upcoming Gecode 4. > > > > But then there is another observation: Did you compile both versions with > exactly the same flags? I doubt. Please check this. > > > > Christian > > > > -- > > Christian Schulte, Professor of Computer Science, KTH, > www.ict.kth.se/~cschulte/ > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Mohamed Rezgui > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:31 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [gecode-users] Problem with rev13418 performances > > > > Hi, > > > > I made benchmark with the attached instance (2DLevelPacking_Class5_20_6.fzn) > from the minizinc challenges with the latest version of gecode revision 13418 > in release mode. > > > > When I compare performances between this version and the 3.7.3 version of > gecode, I am so surprised !!!. > > Gecode 3.7.3 is faster than the latest revision !!! > > > > I just use the parameter -s for stats : > > ---> gecode/bin/fz -s 2DLevelPacking_Class5_20_6.fzn > > > > Use of E7-4870 Intel processor > > > > Benchmarks with gecode rev13418 : > > > > %% runtime: 2594.74 (2594737 ms) > > %% solvetime: 2594.72 (2594718 ms) > > %% workers: 1 > > %% type search: bab > > %% solutions: 1 > > %% objective: 9 > > %% variables: 801 > > %% propagators: 70 > > %% propagations: 22306041 > > %% nodes: 1564742 > > %% failures: 702986 > > %% restarts: 0 > > %% peak depth: 51 > > %% peak memory: 838 KB > > > > Benchmarks with gecode 3.7.3 : > > %% runtime: 32.394 (32394.264 ms) > > %% solvetime: 32.384 (32384.895 ms) > > %% workers: 1 > > %% type search: bab > > %% solutions: 1 > > %% variables: 801 > > %% objective: 9 > > %% propagators: 70 > > %% propagations: 23159635 > > %% nodes: 3114256 > > %% failures: 1557118 > > %% peak depth: 53 > > %% peak memory: 2831 KB > > > > Can you help me about that ??? > > Is it better that I work with 3.7.3 version ??? > > Thank you for your attention. > > > > -- > Best Regards, > > Mohamed REZGUI > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gecode users mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users > > > > > > > > > -- > Cordialement, > > Mohamed REZGUI > > > _______________________________________________ > Gecode users mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users
_______________________________________________ Gecode users mailing list [email protected] https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users
