Failed attempt at ordered gradients/hessians #87
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I'm giving up on the idea, but pushing this anyway in case someone comes up with the same idea.
My idea was, that if the hessians and gradients followed the same order of partition, it would be more cache (or even disk swap) friendly, since it will lead to less random access. The current code only works for parallel_splitting=False, but does not seem to have better performance. The parallel_splitting=True path is half implemented, it still has a bug, but it already shows no performance boost.
I think it also means that implementing #84 will not give a performance boost, only use less memory.