On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 08:11, markus.sons at gmail.com <markus.sons at gmail.com>wrote:
> We want to use PETSc to solve this problem in parallel and would have > hoped to be able to simultaneously drop the wrapper. I guess a mixed > approach would be perfect then? If it's performance-sensitive and smaller than dimension 10 or 20, you want to avoid BLAS (and PETSc Mat/Vec). You also don't want to parallelize super small problems; solve them redundantly if necessary. For larger problems, use whatever abstraction you like. MatDense has minimal overhead forwarding into BLAS/Lapack, but not every function is wrapped. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20111111/f70ee4d7/attachment.htm>
