On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> On 29 April 2013 17:51, Ed Meyer wrote:
>
> > I'm not saying numel() is to blame or should be changed, only that I
> > see no reason to ever use numel when handling sparse matrices unless
> > you
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> On 29 April 2013 17:51, Ed Meyer wrote:
>
> > I'm not saying numel() is to blame or should be changed, only that I
> > see no reason to ever use numel when handling sparse matrices unless
> > you
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <
jord...@octave.org> wrote:
> On 29 April 2013 14:50, Ed Meyer wrote:
> > I'm not proposing using anything but octave_idx_type for indexing or
> > changing the return type of numel() - I just question why nume
Rather than restrict the size of sparse matrices I think it would make more
sense
to fix problems like this as they come up so that sparse storage is used as
it
was intended - to reduce storage & op count.
--
Ed Meyer
arse matrices are stored as three arrays and
the nonzero
and row index arrays are the only ones that need be limited. So you are
saying that
sparse matrices are treated as full in some places?
--
Ed Meyer
rge to be indexed, and this breaks
> assumptions elsewhere in our code.
>
> - Jordi G. H.
>
I'm confused - this is a diagonal sparse matrix so you should be able to
trace() (or any other op)
up to n = 2^32, not n^2 = 2^32. The limit on sparse matrices should be
number of non-zeros < 2^32
--
Ed Meyer
6 matches
Mail list logo
