Current MatSetValues is
MatSetValues(Mat mat,PetscInt m,const PetscInt idxm[],PetscInt n,const PetscInt
idxn[],const PetscScalar v[],InsertMode addv)
I want something like
MatSetValues(Mat mat,PetscInt m,const PetscInt idxm[],PetscInt n,const PetscInt
idxn[],const PetscScalar v[], const PetscInt
Also, in the case that only a *subset* of v[] is used, the new function sounds
easy to me.
Current MatSetValues is
MatSetValues(Mat mat,PetscInt m,const PetscInt idxm[],PetscInt n,const
PetscInt idxn[],const PetscScalar v[],InsertMode addv)
I want something like
MatSetValues(Mat
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Hui Zhang mike.hui.zhang at hotmail.comwrote:
Also, in the case that only a *subset* of v[] is used, the new function
sounds easy to me.
The problem here is that this is one of the most used functions in PETSc.
Thus we want to
keep it is simple and fast as
Have you looked at MatSetValuesLocal()
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/Mat/MatSetValuesLocal.html?
That routine might be close enough to what you need.
Dmitry.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 4:01 AM, Hui Zhang mike.hui.zhang at hotmail.comwrote:
Also, in the case that only
Thanks for the hint! I should your advice.
On May 27, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Dmitry Karpeev wrote:
Have you looked at MatSetValuesLocal()
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/Mat/MatSetValuesLocal.html?
That routine might be close enough to what you need.
Dmitry.
On
Since the values I want to take from v[] are not contiguous in v[], I found
even with
MatSetValuesLocal I can not avoid to make a copy of the values(that I want to
take) in
a new array vnew[].
On May 27, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Dmitry Karpeev wrote:
Have you looked at MatSetValuesLocal()
On May 27, 2012, at 10:06 AM, Hui Zhang wrote:
Since the values I want to take from v[] are not contiguous in v[], I found
even with
MatSetValuesLocal I can not avoid to make a copy of the values(that I want to
take) in
a new array vnew[].
That extra copy is inexpensive compared to
Of course, this new function sounds unnecessary because reordering v is
equivalent to reordering
idxm[] and idxn[]. But the second method seems not an easy task to me, is it?
Why not use a single AO object to hold the mapping between PETSc mapping
and your maping? Seems to me that the
On May 27, 2012, at 8:58 PM, Mohammad Mirzadeh wrote:
Of course, this new function sounds unnecessary because reordering v is
equivalent to reordering
idxm[] and idxn[]. But the second method seems not an easy task to me, is
it?
Why not use a single AO object to hold the
