On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 17:52, Klaus Zimmermann < klaus.zimmermann at physik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
> I agree. This is mostly because I didn't understand the concepts so well at > the time I wrote this code and one of the reasons why I would like to > refactor. > In my case there should in principle be three output vectors. All the > facilities I have seen in petsc only deal with a single output vector. Is > this correct? > Of course there is an obvious mapping, but I would prefer to keep the > vectors apart because that way it is easier to deal with the parallel > layout. > Packing them together will give you better memory performance. You can extract separate pieces with the VecStride functions if you need it separate. If you have a really good reason for storing them separately, petsc-dev has VecNest which lets you treat several vectors as one, but some operations are more expensive and I would not recommend using it for your purposes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20110208/c5f2425e/attachment-0001.htm>
