Conversation
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
We were mistakenly setting the last `num_ineq` entries active, while we should be doing the opposite: set the last `num_eq` entries active.
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
Member
|
Well spotted! Was it only a matter of speed or did it also change the outcome? I would suspect the former as the tests still passed. |
Member
|
As far as I can tell, that basically meant it was initialised with all constraints active, and since constraints are added/removed one at a time, this means it takes a lot longer to converge to the solution (which will typically have only a handful of constraints active). That explains the longer runtime, and why all the tests passed. Nice detective work! |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #3260.
The following change was introduced in #3182:
We were mistakenly setting the last
num_ineqentries active, while we should be doing the opposite: set the lastnum_eqentries active. This caused a large set of inequality constraints to be active in the solver, leading to performance issues. This PR restores the behaviour prior to #3182.