Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Jan 12, 2024. It is now read-only.

Conversation

@DmitryVasilevsky
Copy link
Contributor

@DmitryVasilevsky DmitryVasilevsky commented Oct 20, 2020

Tracer component now produces compatible "Width" and "Depth" metrics, both computed in the depth counter. "Width" previously computed by the width counter is still reported as "QubitCount". User can request width or depth optimized circuit to get compatible width and height in desired case. For example,

using(q = Qubit()) { T(q); }
using(q = Qubit()) { T(q); }

will result in Width=1, Depth=2 when OptimizeDepth is false, and Width=2, Depth=1 when OptimizeDepth is true. For compatibility "QubitCount" is kept and will still be reported as 1.

@bettinaheim
Copy link
Contributor

The failing iqsharp build seems to be due to a test that simply needs to be updated.

Copy link
Contributor

@cgranade cgranade left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for opening this! I think the main thing that jumps out at me as a user of the trace simulator is that, as per @bettinaheim's comments, it's not really clear what ExtraWidth is and what that metric tracks about the execution of a quantum program.

Copy link
Contributor

@bettinaheim bettinaheim left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for adding this!

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Width and depth metrics from ResourcesEstimator can seem inconsistent

6 participants