[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] sdgfdf
- From: Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 12:30:28 +0100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tB5we3iwA1bd9J4GOuElAMrEXnr7pkP4dymKtOqvNCs=; b=xXq9woy1b2cicSn3PmAPCWs1R6Qb6WQjjneo77EJBgThTnTrUHVhrjWl7dEZqaNhTc 2CYW/HBdjBatinO0dRMPS7PPUfMmDYMWn0eiT5CzYtu8d71MtlaznaiHS2W7Ffxu5pvg 2HicJRBUSUbtCYfpfbQukl1AZtFgcHap4sI0c=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=NkjsKhQTZrFUmVgG8EJsafe1jnOXNClWrH74TmECKn9WLApYa+Ve/AU3HX5yD6oNvX plrMfJRNv2bwOR1gWNQQ8UHMyNmetpIQzv57kaeFIXw0WNovimN+QUsC1TUceFZCcHJq rfbe7Lkq9vz0LY2tNGrpu/k0PUQAc2zAgOLOE=
Hi,
yes this is something I've thought about, there is no difficulty.
Actually my initial concern was rather about "int" which could be too
small if n > 2^32, so I'll make the types of both "index pointers" and
"coordinate" template parameters. Note that with "unsigned short" for
the coordinate type, you are limited to 65k x 65k matrices, that is
not very large.
Gael.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Jens Mueller <jens.k.mueller@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> storing sparse matrices efficiently is important. Eigen2 supports the
> often used compressed sparse row/column format. What I find annoying is
> that the type of the indices can't be specified. For dense matrices this
> is perfectly valid. But let's say I have a sparse matrix with n
> coefficients. With Eigen it boils down to having a value array of size n
> with Scalar type and an int array of size n. Let's assume my index
> would fit in a short that consumes 2 bytes compared to an 4 byte int.
> Then this wastes 2n bytes. I'm working with large sparse matrices. From
> my perspective I need to be very carefully using main memory. Further
> storing the indices more compact should result in better cache
> behaviour. Since I can fit more into the cache, i.e. reducing cache
> misses. But I'm not very sure about this, since aligned memory is also
> an issue.
> The most obvious solution is to introduce template arguments to set the
> types of the indices.
> But I'm very unsure whether this is worse the trouble. Have you thought
> about this issue yet? Any ideas? Or no problem at all?
>
> Regards,
> Jens
>
> PS:
> Thanks, Gael. I have seen the MappedSparseMatrix. I will try this out in
> the near future.
>
>
>