>> Ok - we will probably check into this soon. The one issue is the
>> above case where you have the discontinuous pressure variable.
>> Is it ok to generate a sparsity pattern for that variable that is a
>> bit large? Or is that too much of a waste for a fairly common case?
>
If the pres
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Derek Gaston wrote:
> Ok - we will probably check into this soon. The one issue is the
> above case where you have the discontinuous pressure variable.
> Is it ok to generate a sparsity pattern for that variable that is a
> bit large? Or is that too much of a waste for
On Aug 10, 2010, at 1:35 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
> Discontinuous pressure variables are a common situation, and IMHO
> they're reason enough alone not to turn on implicit_neighbor_dofs for
> every case where you see a single discontinuous variable.
Aha! Good point! I knew I was forgetting a case
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Derek Gaston wrote:
> I can't think of a time when you would have discontinuous
> variables that you are solving for and you wouldn't want implicit
> neighbor dofs on.
Discontinuous pressure variables are a common situation, and IMHO
they're reason enough alone not to turn o
I'm looking into the implicit neighbor dof stuff in the sparsity pattern
generator and I have a few observations.
1. Do you think it would be possible to change the default for
implicit_neighbor_dofs such that if you have _any_ discontinuous variables you
switch it to true? Right now you
