|Subject:||Re: [Help-glpk] mathprog assistance|
|Date:||Mon, 28 Mar 2016 21:29:58 +0000|
OK. Here are some quick thoughts ...1. You can simplify the data section by defining the sets L and P when defining parameters. No efficiency gain here, just cleaner.2. When I run as is, there are 456 binary variables, 1045 constraints. The sequence constraints only need to be defined for p < q sincethe case q > p is redundant.That change alone reduces the problem to 246 binary variables and 625 constraints.3. I haven't tested this, but defining start times as x[p,l] seems redundant. The same information is coded in x[p] and lp[p,l].Points 1 & 2 are illustrated in the attached file.JeffOn Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 10:41 PM Nick Farrell <address@hidden> wrote:
Hi Jeff, thanks for looking.
My contrived example may be setting only one capability, but usually some would have multiple capabilities. For example, an IMRT machine may also have VMAT capabilities.
My intention is that if a patient requires multiple capabilities, they all have to be simultaneously satisfied before a linac is a viable candidate.
Hope that helps.
NickOn 28 Mar 2016 1:18 PM, "Jeffrey Kantor" <address@hidden> wrote:Hi Nick,In looking through the model, one question concerns the linac capabilities. These are coded as IMRT, VMAT, and MRI. Each machine has one and only one of the of these capabilities. And each patient requires one and only capability. Is that true in general, or is that just true for this example?JeffOn Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:50 PM Nick Farrell <address@hidden> wrote:
It appears the list server is scrubbing my text files:
Help-glpk mailing list
Description: Binary data
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|