Some performance and allocation optimizations #391
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Nice. I'll fix the formatting. I went for simplicity over performance with #357, and I figured it didn't matter because no one complained (until now 😄). |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #391 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 94.06% 94.22% +0.16%
==========================================
Files 4 4
Lines 927 953 +26
==========================================
+ Hits 872 898 +26
Misses 55 55
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
odow
approved these changes
Oct 25, 2023
|
Still happy? |
|
Yeah looks good to me. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
#357 appears to increase the memory allocation for a problem I have by ~4x in number and ~1.7x in size. (It doesn't affect the constructed problem but it was affecting the overall performance on a somewhat memory constraint system (relative to the problem size))
Most of the allocations seems to be caused by unnecessary allocation of the array which is fixed in the second commit. The first and the third commits are some minor and easy optimizations I noticed while going through the code. These changes got the final allocation to be ~2x in number and ~1.1x in size.
The remaining additional allocation comes from the use of quadratic function to uniformly store all the constraints and objective information. (The extra allocation has two parts, one from the creation of the empty quadratic term vector when converting to a quadratic function and the other one from the index mapping for those terms at https://github.com/jump-dev/MathOptInterface.jl/blob/36ed9d8c8561d2fdc0cb7c1fe773566cbc0c7e29/src/Utilities/functions.jl#L315 ). This is fixed in the last commit by making the functions unions and rely on the union splitting from the compiler to deal with the resulting type instability. With this last commit, I got an allocation count/size that's basically the same as before.