Re: [julia-users] overhead of accessing rows vs columns in SparseMatrixCSC format
Also, the general view is that new sparse matrix formats should be in packages rather than Base, which everyone agrees with. This would lead to faster development - and Base can be modified to make it easy to add new sparse formats. -viral On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 9:30:31 AM UTC+5:30, Viral Shah wrote: > > Nobody is working on it at the moment, that I know of. We almost had a > working version then, but it was deemed too complex to include in Base at > that time. > > -viral > > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 6:28:26 AM UTC+5:30, Anonymous wrote: >> >> Thank you for the response, I read the 2015 discussion on here about CSR >> sparse matrices, do you happen to know the implementation status on when >> this will be included? >> >> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 4:59:40 PM UTC-8, Tim Holy wrote: >>> >>> Likely yes to both. Best to just test yourself, of course. >>> >>> I'm sure you know this, but you'll want to access them through the >>> return >>> values of findnz or equivalent, not using S[i,j]. >>> >>> --Tim >>> >>> On Monday, March 07, 2016 10:50:58 AM Anonymous wrote: >>> > So I have a sparse matrix which doesn't get modified by for which I >>> would >>> > like to access by rows, is there significantly more overhead in >>> accessing >>> > rows vs columns? If so, would it be more efficient to instead access >>> the >>> > columns of its transpose? >>> >>>
Re: [julia-users] overhead of accessing rows vs columns in SparseMatrixCSC format
Nobody is working on it at the moment, that I know of. We almost had a working version then, but it was deemed too complex to include in Base at that time. -viral On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 6:28:26 AM UTC+5:30, Anonymous wrote: > > Thank you for the response, I read the 2015 discussion on here about CSR > sparse matrices, do you happen to know the implementation status on when > this will be included? > > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 4:59:40 PM UTC-8, Tim Holy wrote: >> >> Likely yes to both. Best to just test yourself, of course. >> >> I'm sure you know this, but you'll want to access them through the return >> values of findnz or equivalent, not using S[i,j]. >> >> --Tim >> >> On Monday, March 07, 2016 10:50:58 AM Anonymous wrote: >> > So I have a sparse matrix which doesn't get modified by for which I >> would >> > like to access by rows, is there significantly more overhead in >> accessing >> > rows vs columns? If so, would it be more efficient to instead access >> the >> > columns of its transpose? >> >>
Re: [julia-users] overhead of accessing rows vs columns in SparseMatrixCSC format
Thank you for the response, I read the 2015 discussion on here about CSR sparse matrices, do you happen to know the implementation status on when this will be included? On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 4:59:40 PM UTC-8, Tim Holy wrote: > > Likely yes to both. Best to just test yourself, of course. > > I'm sure you know this, but you'll want to access them through the return > values of findnz or equivalent, not using S[i,j]. > > --Tim > > On Monday, March 07, 2016 10:50:58 AM Anonymous wrote: > > So I have a sparse matrix which doesn't get modified by for which I > would > > like to access by rows, is there significantly more overhead in > accessing > > rows vs columns? If so, would it be more efficient to instead access > the > > columns of its transpose? > >
Re: [julia-users] overhead of accessing rows vs columns in SparseMatrixCSC format
Likely yes to both. Best to just test yourself, of course. I'm sure you know this, but you'll want to access them through the return values of findnz or equivalent, not using S[i,j]. --Tim On Monday, March 07, 2016 10:50:58 AM Anonymous wrote: > So I have a sparse matrix which doesn't get modified by for which I would > like to access by rows, is there significantly more overhead in accessing > rows vs columns? If so, would it be more efficient to instead access the > columns of its transpose?
[julia-users] overhead of accessing rows vs columns in SparseMatrixCSC format
So I have a sparse matrix which doesn't get modified by for which I would like to access by rows, is there significantly more overhead in accessing rows vs columns? If so, would it be more efficient to instead access the columns of its transpose?
