Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clean up #272

Conversation

mohamed-barakat
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ gap> runtime_quiver := Runtime( ) - start;;
#
gap> if runtime >= runtime_quiver * 3 / 10 then Display( true ); else Display( runtime ); Display( runtime_quiver ); fi;
true
gap> if runtime <= runtime_quiver * 4 / 10 then Display( true ); else Display( runtime ); Display( runtime_quiver ); fi;
gap> if runtime <= runtime_quiver * 5 / 10 then Display( true ); else Display( runtime ); Display( runtime_quiver ); fi;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If this is needed, this means that the compiled code has gotten slower compared to the non-compiled code. Which commit is responsible for this?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can only reproduce this on my laptop, where the noncompiled code seems to be faster than in the CI.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Has this always been the case, i.e. already when this test was introduced?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, this is new.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I will wait for your answer before I merge.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you post runtime and runtime_quiver before and after the regression?

Copy link
Member Author

@mohamed-barakat mohamed-barakat Jul 2, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Without regression:

AdditiveClosureOfAlgebroid_vs_QuiverRows
msecs: 3367
gap> runtime;
647
gap> runtime_quiver;
1647
gap> Float( runtime_quiver * 4 / 10 );
658.8

With regression:

AdditiveClosureOfAlgebroid_vs_QuiverRows
msecs: 3316
gap> runtime;
666
gap> runtime_quiver;
1586
gap> Float( runtime_quiver * 4 / 10 );
634.4

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, my first numbers were wrong, now they are fixed.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You see from the timings that with PR homalg-project/HigherHomologicalAlgebra#158 the runtime of QuiverRows is dropping.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 1, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and project coverage change: -0.01 ⚠️

Comparison is base (13ec325) 73.50% compared to head (eb42997) 73.50%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #272      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   73.50%   73.50%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         322      322              
  Lines       53174    53170       -4     
==========================================
- Hits        39085    39081       -4     
  Misses      14089    14089              
Flag Coverage Δ
Algebroids 74.52% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
CatReps 83.16% <ø> (ø)
CategoriesWithAmbientObjects 89.30% <ø> (ø)
CategoryConstructor 79.08% <ø> (ø)
ExteriorPowersCategories 43.70% <ø> (ø)
FiniteCocompletions 96.03% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
FunctorCategories 63.79% <ø> (ø)
GradedCategories 82.89% <ø> (ø)
InternalModules 80.63% <ø> (ø)
IntrinsicCategories 83.11% <ø> (ø)
IntrinsicGradedModules 50.86% <ø> (ø)
IntrinsicModules 82.13% <ø> (ø)
LazyCategories 73.69% <ø> (ø)
Locales 85.32% <ø> (ø)
PreSheaves 91.95% <ø> (ø)
SubcategoriesForCAP 80.81% <ø> (ø)
Toposes 89.04% <ø> (ø)
ZariskiFrames 74.31% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
...initeCocompletions/gap/CategoryOfColimitQuivers.gi 98.75% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
Algebroids/PackageInfo.g 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
Algebroids/gap/Algebroids.gi 89.47% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
FiniteCocompletions/PackageInfo.g 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@mohamed-barakat mohamed-barakat merged commit b78e699 into homalg-project:master Jul 1, 2023
4 checks passed
@mohamed-barakat mohamed-barakat deleted the CategoryOfColimitQuivers branch July 1, 2023 15:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants