[gecode-users] Problem with rev13418 performances

[Mohamed Rezgui]

OK thank you very much.
I found another bug in linking the libgecodeflatzinc.
error reference with Flatzinc::parse ...
so I must include the files parser.tab.cpp and lexer.yy.cpp in MakeFile.in
--> FLATZINCSRC0 = flatzinc.cpp registry.cpp parser.tab.cpp lexer.yy.cpp
to link successfully.

Can you fix this bug please ?
Thank you very much for your work ^^ You are the best ^^

Best Regards,
Mohamed REZGUI

2013/2/26 Guido Tack <tack at gecode.org>

> 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
>
>
>


-- 
Cordialement,
Mohamed REZGUI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gecode.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130227/859d1cdc/attachment.html>