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
Investigate discrepancy between non-BLAS and BLAS versions of linfa-pls
#278
Comments
Flamegraphs from profiling attached. I haven't studied profiling or flamegraphs to build a firm foundation yet so I can't provide any insights. Each profile was run for 1min. |
par_azip can be used in place of zip in our code as this is where a significant amount of time is spent. Regression-Nipals-5feats-100_000 would benefit from the above the screenshots are attached with a black border around the area of interest. similarly,
|
Our param_guard code
and its implementation for pls
|
The |
Hmm did I interpret the flamegraph wrong? I thought since it was at the top most of the CPU time was spent there or I guess it's possible that it's saying most of the time is spent on the |
That's what I think is happening, have to look at it to make sure. All I know is that there's no way the |
According to benchmark results from this comment,
linfa-pls
is slightly slower without BLAS. Specifically, theRegression-Nipals
benchmarks are slightly slower when the sample size is 100000, and theRegression-Svd
andCanonical-Svd
benchmarks are slower when the sample size is 100000.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: