[gecode-users] Problem with rev13418 performances

[Guido Tack]

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 <kyo.alone at gmail.com> 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 <cschulte at kth.se>
> 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:kyo.alone at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:49 PM
> To: victor.zverovich at gmail.com
> Cc: cschulte at kth.se; users at gecode.org
> 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 victor.zverovich at gmail.com <victor.zverovich at gmail.com>
> 
> 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 <kyo.alone at gmail.com> 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 <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
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gecode users mailing list
> users at gecode.org
> https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> Cordialement,
> 
> Mohamed REZGUI
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gecode users mailing list
> users at gecode.org
> https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gecode.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130227/c4be361e/attachment-0001.html>