With configure option: --with-ctable=
Satish
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Kong, Fande wrote:
> BTW, one more question:
>
> There are some pieces of code in #if defined(PETSC_USE_CTABLE) #endif.
> How to disable ctable? That is, make PETSC_USE_CTABLE false during
> configuration.
>
> Fande,
>
BTW, one more question:
There are some pieces of code in #if defined(PETSC_USE_CTABLE) #endif.
How to disable ctable? That is, make PETSC_USE_CTABLE false during
configuration.
Fande,
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
> Satish Balay
Satish Balay writes:
> I tried looking at it - but it was easier for me to fixup current ctable code.
I mentioned it more as a long-term thing. I don't think we need two
different hashtable implementations in PETSc. I think khash is better
and extensible, so we may as well
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, Jed Brown wrote:
> Satish Balay writes:
>
> >> Why is it not sufficient to be coprime?
> >
> > Well whatever was implemented previsously with PETSC_HASH_FACT [a
> > prime number] didn't work well. [there were a couple of reports on it].
>
> That was
Satish Balay writes:
>> Why is it not sufficient to be coprime?
>
> Well whatever was implemented previsously with PETSC_HASH_FACT [a
> prime number] didn't work well. [there were a couple of reports on it].
That was linear probing, right?
> Checking double hashing [Intro to
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, Jed Brown wrote:
> Satish Balay writes:
>
> > On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, Jed Brown wrote:
> >
> >> Satish Balay writes:
> >> > Sure - I'm using a crappy algorithm [look-up table] to get
> >> > "prime_number_close_to(1.4*sz)" - as I don't know
I've added up to INT_MAX
Let us know if that doesn't work.
Satish
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, Kong, Fande wrote:
> Thanks a lot Satish!
>
> Like Jed said, it would be better if we could come up an algorithm for
> automatically computing a hash size for a given n. Otherwise, we may need
> to add
Satish Balay writes:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, Jed Brown wrote:
>
>> Satish Balay writes:
>> > Sure - I'm using a crappy algorithm [look-up table] to get
>> > "prime_number_close_to(1.4*sz)" - as I don't know how to generate
>> > these numbers automatically.
>>
Thanks a lot Satish!
Like Jed said, it would be better if we could come up an algorithm for
automatically computing a hash size for a given n. Otherwise, we may need
to add more entries to the lookup again in the future.
Fande,
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Satish Balay
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, Jed Brown wrote:
> Satish Balay writes:
> > Sure - I'm using a crappy algorithm [look-up table] to get
> > "prime_number_close_to(1.4*sz)" - as I don't know how to generate
> > these numbers automatically.
>
> FWIW, it only needs to be coprime with
Satish Balay writes:
> Sure - I'm using a crappy algorithm [look-up table] to get
> "prime_number_close_to(1.4*sz)" - as I don't know how to generate
> these numbers automatically.
FWIW, it only needs to be coprime with PETSC_HASH_FACT.
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, Jed Brown wrote:
> Satish Balay writes:
>
> > We can add more entries to the lookup. The stack below looks
> > incomplete. Which routine is calling PetscTableCreateHashSize() with
> > this big size?
> >
> > Satish
> >
> > ---
> > $ git diff
> > diff
Satish Balay writes:
> We can add more entries to the lookup. The stack below looks
> incomplete. Which routine is calling PetscTableCreateHashSize() with
> this big size?
>
> Satish
>
> ---
> $ git diff
> diff --git a/src/sys/utils/ctable.c b/src/sys/utils/ctable.c
>
Thanks, Satish,
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Satish Balay wrote:
> We can add more entries to the lookup. The stack below looks
> incomplete. Which routine is calling PetscTableCreateHashSize() with
> this big size?
>
call trace:
[4]PETSC ERROR: #3
We can add more entries to the lookup. The stack below looks
incomplete. Which routine is calling PetscTableCreateHashSize() with
this big size?
Satish
---
$ git diff
diff --git a/src/sys/utils/ctable.c b/src/sys/utils/ctable.c
index cd64284..761a2c6 100644
--- a/src/sys/utils/ctable.c
+++
Hi All,
Hash size is set manually according to the number of expected keys in the
function PetscTableCreateHashSize(). Any reason to restrict the
``n"<3276800?
One user here encountered an issue because of this restriction. The
messages are as follows:
[3]PETSC ERROR: -
16 matches
Mail list logo