Performance when changing LP data#2813
Conversation
88ab8c6 to
afad16b
Compare
jajhall
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll look at this again, and thanks for submitting the PR, but my instinct is that the overhead you're avoiding doesn't justify the additional code complexity: solving the modified problem is very much more expensive than performing the modification with the local copy
|
Thanks for taking a look - the "repeated sort" is what caught my eye when I was profiling one of my problems. I'll see if I can come up with an example that I can share that captures the behavior I'm seeing. |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## latest #2813 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 80.33% 80.33%
=======================================
Files 348 348
Lines 86084 86109 +25
=======================================
+ Hits 69152 69175 +23
- Misses 16932 16934 +2 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Potential performance improvements when changing LP data (costs, row and column bounds)
In particular, this avoids re-allocating local copies of data and re-sorting index sets