[gecode-users] Problem with rev13418 performances

[Mohamed Rezgui]

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 <cschulte at kth.se>

> 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:* users-bounces at gecode.org [mailto:users-bounces at gecode.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Mohamed Rezgui
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:31 PM
> *To:* users at gecode.org
> *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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gecode.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130226/1a9144fa/attachment.html>