On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Bill Greene <
w.h.greene@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>I'd be interested in CSparse for instance :
>>The good news is that it is CCS, but the Eigen doc[0] warns about a
>> difference:
>>"unlike several other sparse libraries (e.g., CSparse), the coefficients of
>> our CCS matrices are always sorted. " Am I right to believe that this won't
>> be a stumbling block ?
>
> There is no problem extracting the internal arrays of an Eigen CCS
> SparseMatrix and passing them to the CSparse routines. CSparse does not
> require the columns
> to be sorted by row-index but is quite happy to accept sparse matrices
> stored this way.
>
> CSparse (like CHOLMOD) *does* require the sparse matrices to be stored as
> CCS (rather than CRS). I downloaded the 10/29 zip file for Eigen3 and did
> not see in the
> code a test to make sure the matrix is CCS-- but I could easily have missed
> that.
>
> CSparse (unlike CHOLMOD) does not accept a sparse matrix with only the
> coefficients in the lower triangle stored.
> So something like
> Eigen::CSparseDecomposition<Eigen::SparseMatrix<double>,Eigen::Lower> chol;
> would need to be rejected.
>
> Which brings up a design question. Should the SparseMatrix class itself
> allow the user to set and check the characteristics of the matrix-- i.e.
> symmetric-lower,
> symmetric-upper, unsymmetric? I know the dense matrix classes treat these
> characteristics as a "view" of the matrix. I'm sure this issue has been
> discussed
> previously but I haven't seen this discussion, myself.
>
> Here is one other small observation about Eigen::CholmodDecomposition(). The
> design lets you extract the success or failure of the last method via in the
> info()
> method. Internally, the class maintains m_analysisIsOk and
> m_factorizationIsOk values. Shouldn't the user be able to retrieve these
> anytime also?
>
> Bill Greene
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:23 PM, <
bernard.hugueney@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>>
>>> i,
>>>
>>> I've started to rework our sparse solvers/backends with Cholmod. The
>>> old API is still available.
>>> The first difference is that there is no SparssLLT or SparseLDLT or so
>>> base classes which was really confusing to use.
>>> Instead, you directly use the relevant wrapper class,
>>> CholmodDecomposition<MatrixType,UpLo>:
>>> [snip]
>>> You can also configure the underlying decomposition with:
>>> chol.setMode(mode);
>>> [snip]
>>> It is not that much changes but I think this approach is much cleaner
>>> and easier to use.
>>> I plane to write all solvers/wrappers using the same model, so it is
>>> perfect time to give your opinion on what would be the best API for
>>> them. The constraint is that we must be as close as possible to the
>>> dense API, but it is perfectly reasonable to add convenient methods
>>> with more runtime facilities....
>>
>> Cool, this is great news to me !
>> As previously discussed, I believe that the runtime of most (all ?)
>> member function calls on sparse matrices and the lack of compile-time
>> unrolling through fixed size makes static polymorphism pointless for
>> such use cases, so I'll be glad to get the ease of use of runtime
>> polymorphism instead.
>>
>> Wrt API, I think it should be possible to closely follow the dense API
>> with the only addition of your setMode(XXX) with XXX being the run-time
>> equivalent of the compile-time template parameters.
>>
>>> Then we could imagine to have a meta solver built on top of them with
>>> runtime registration of backends, priority rules, etc. but that's
>>> another story.
>>
>> The main difference is that the availability of backends could be checked
>> at runtime instead of compile-time. That would be an asset when
>> shipping binaries using system libraries (e.g. libsparsesuite,
>> libumfpack on Debian). Do you have plans/ideas to support this ?
>>
>> Speaking about backends, I am wondering how hard is it to write a new
>> wrapper.
>> I'd be interested in CSparse for instance :
>> The good news is that it is CCS, but the Eigen doc[0] warns about a
>> difference:
>> "unlike several other sparse libraries (e.g., CSparse), the coefficients
>> of
>> our CCS matrices are always sorted. " Am I right to believe that this
>> won't
>> be a stumbling block ?
>>
>> One of my reasons to be interested by CSparse is that the LU decomposition
>> is rank revealing : is there another way to compute the rank with
>> currently
>> supported Eigen backends ?
>>
>> (I would also be insterested in SPRSBLKLLT)
>>
>> On the subject of backend choice, maybe it would be useful to add a few
>> references (I not qualified to evaluated the, but I found [1] anf [2] to
>> be
>> interesting.), in the doc (maybe @[3]).
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Bernard
>> [0]
http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=SparseMatrix#Current_state
>> [1]
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/research/sparse/codes/codes..pdf
>> [2]
ftp://ftp.numerical.rl.ac.uk/pub/reports/ghsRAL200505.pdf
>> [3]
>>
>>
http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/dox-devel/TutorialSparse.html#TutorialSparseDirectSolvers
>>
>>
>>
>
>