[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Help-glpk] out-of-memory workarounds [Fixed]

From: Barry Rountree
Subject: Re: [Help-glpk] out-of-memory workarounds [Fixed]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 15:37:45 -0400
User-agent: KMail/1.9.1

Replying to my own email:

I've added a table lookup that converts my handy-but-VERY-sparse indexing into 
a much more compact form.  As I have a wrapper library for the glpk calls, I 
was able to localize all of the changes there and not touch (much) of my 
application code.

The presolver is now not eliminating any rows or columns, and we're going to 
call that a good thing.


On Wednesday 23 May 2007 11:31, Barry Rountree wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm starting to run into problem sizes that result in out-of-memory errors.
> The matrix is quite sparse, and the presolver does an excellent job of
> reducing the problem size (when it doesn't run out of memory first).  For
> example:
>   lpx_simplex: original LP has 775626 rows, 3861761 columns, 302081
> non-zeros lpx_simplex: presolved LP has 18378 rows, 75520 columns, 302080
> non-zeros
> At some point, though, things get a bit out of hand.
>   lpx_simplex: original LP has 1319436 rows, 6581761 columns, 163841
> non-zeros umalloc: size = 8024; no memory available
> First, is there a good rule-of-thumb to estimate memory usage given rows,
> columns and non-zeros?
> Second, is there a particular set of options I should be using/avoiding in
> order to minimize memory?
> Finally, would a realistic solution be to modify the presolver to use less
> memory (presumably at the expense of taking much, much longer to run)?
> I've also tried using the interior-point method, and while it does handle
> larger matricies, it's running out of memory too.
> Thanks much,
> Barry Rountree
> _______________________________________________
> Help-glpk mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]