doc/DenseDecompositionBenchmark.dox - mirror - Git at Google

 namespace Eigen {

 /** \eigenManualPage DenseDecompositionBenchmark Benchmark of dense decompositions

 This page presents a speed comparison of the dense matrix decompositions offered by %Eigen for a wide range of square matrices and overconstrained problems.

 For a more general overview on the features and numerical robustness of linear solvers and decompositions, check this \link TopicLinearAlgebraDecompositions table \endlink.

 This benchmark has been run on a laptop equipped with an Intel core i7 \@ 2,6 GHz, and compiled with clang with \b AVX and \b FMA instruction sets enabled but without multi-threading.
 It uses \b single \b precision \b float numbers. For double, you can get a good estimate by multiplying the timings by a factor 2.

 The square matrices are symmetric, and for the overconstrained matrices, the reported timmings include the cost to compute the symmetric covariance matrix \f$ A^T A \f$ for the first four solvers based on Cholesky and LU, as denoted by the \b * symbol (top-right corner part of the table).
 Timings are in \b milliseconds, and factors are relative to the LLT decomposition which is the fastest but also the least general and robust.

 <table class="manual">
 <tr><th>solver/size</th>
   <th>8x8</th>  <th>100x100</th>  <th>1000x1000</th>  <th>4000x4000</th>  <th>10000x8</th>  <th>10000x100</th>  <th>10000x1000</th>  <th>10000x4000</th></tr>
 <tr><td>LLT</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.42</td><td>5.83</td><td>374.55</td><td>6.79 <sup><a href="#note_ls">*</a></sup></td><td>30.15 <sup><a href="#note_ls">*</a></sup></td><td>236.34 <sup><a href="#note_ls">*</a></sup></td><td>3847.17 <sup><a href="#note_ls">*</a></sup></td></tr>
 <tr class="alt"><td>LDLT</td><td>0.07 (x1.3)</td><td>0.65 (x1.5)</td><td>26.86 (x4.6)</td><td>2361.18 (x6.3)</td><td>6.81 (x1) <sup><a href="#note_ls">*</a></sup></td><td>31.91 (x1.1) <sup><a href="#note_ls">*</a></sup></td><td>252.61 (x1.1) <sup><a href="#note_ls">*</a></sup></td><td>5807.66 (x1.5) <sup><a href="#note_ls">*</a></sup></td></tr>
 <tr><td>PartialPivLU</td><td>0.08 (x1.5)</td><td>0.69 (x1.6)</td><td>15.63 (x2.7)</td><td>709.32 (x1.9)</td><td>6.81 (x1) <sup><a href="#note_ls">*</a></sup></td><td>31.32 (x1) <sup><a href="#note_ls">*</a></sup></td><td>241.68 (x1) <sup><a href="#note_ls">*</a></sup></td><td>4270.48 (x1.1) <sup><a href="#note_ls">*</a></sup></td></tr>
 <tr class="alt"><td>FullPivLU</td><td>0.1 (x1.9)</td><td>4.48 (x10.6)</td><td>281.33 (x48.2)</td><td>-</td><td>6.83 (x1) <sup><a href="#note_ls">*</a></sup></td><td>32.67 (x1.1) <sup><a href="#note_ls">*</a></sup></td><td>498.25 (x2.1) <sup><a href="#note_ls">*</a></sup></td><td>-</td></tr>
 <tr><td>HouseholderQR</td><td>0.19 (x3.5)</td><td>2.18 (x5.2)</td><td>23.42 (x4)</td><td>1337.52 (x3.6)</td><td>34.26 (x5)</td><td>129.01 (x4.3)</td><td>377.37 (x1.6)</td><td>4839.1 (x1.3)</td></tr>
 <tr class="alt"><td>ColPivHouseholderQR</td><td>0.23 (x4.3)</td><td>2.23 (x5.3)</td><td>103.34 (x17.7)</td><td>9987.16 (x26.7)</td><td>36.05 (x5.3)</td><td>163.18 (x5.4)</td><td>2354.08 (x10)</td><td>37860.5 (x9.8)</td></tr>
 <tr><td>CompleteOrthogonalDecomposition</td><td>0.23 (x4.3)</td><td>2.22 (x5.2)</td><td>99.44 (x17.1)</td><td>10555.3 (x28.2)</td><td>35.75 (x5.3)</td><td>169.39 (x5.6)</td><td>2150.56 (x9.1)</td><td>36981.8 (x9.6)</td></tr>
 <tr class="alt"><td>FullPivHouseholderQR</td><td>0.23 (x4.3)</td><td>4.64 (x11)</td><td>289.1 (x49.6)</td><td>-</td><td>69.38 (x10.2)</td><td>446.73 (x14.8)</td><td>4852.12 (x20.5)</td><td>-</td></tr>
 <tr><td>JacobiSVD</td><td>1.01 (x18.6)</td><td>71.43 (x168.4)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>113.81 (x16.7)</td><td>1179.66 (x39.1)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr>
 <tr class="alt"><td>BDCSVD</td><td>1.07 (x19.7)</td><td>21.83 (x51.5)</td><td>331.77 (x56.9)</td><td>18587.9 (x49.6)</td><td>110.53 (x16.3)</td><td>397.67 (x13.2)</td><td>2975 (x12.6)</td><td>48593.2 (x12.6)</td></tr>
 </table>

 <a name="note_ls">\b *: </a> This decomposition do not support direct least-square solving for over-constrained problems, and the reported timing include the cost to form the symmetric covariance matrix \f$ A^T A \f$.

 \b Observations:
  + LLT is always the fastest solvers.
  + For largely over-constrained problems, the cost of Cholesky/LU decompositions is dominated by the computation of the symmetric covariance matrix.
  + For large problem sizes, only the decomposition implementing a cache-friendly blocking strategy scale well. Those include LLT, PartialPivLU, HouseholderQR, and BDCSVD. This explain why for a 4k x 4k matrix, HouseholderQR is faster than LDLT. In the future, LDLT and ColPivHouseholderQR will also implement blocking strategies.
  + CompleteOrthogonalDecomposition is based on ColPivHouseholderQR and they thus achieve the same level of performance.

 The above table has been generated by the <a href="https://gitlab.com/libeigen/eigen/raw/master/bench/dense_solvers.cpp">bench/dense_solvers.cpp</a> file, feel-free to hack it to generate a table matching your hardware, compiler, and favorite problem sizes.

 */

 }
	namespace Eigen {

	/** \eigenManualPage DenseDecompositionBenchmark Benchmark of dense decompositions

	This page presents a speed comparison of the dense matrix decompositions offered by %Eigen for a wide range of square matrices and overconstrained problems.

	For a more general overview on the features and numerical robustness of linear solvers and decompositions, check this \link TopicLinearAlgebraDecompositions table \endlink.

	This benchmark has been run on a laptop equipped with an Intel core i7 \@ 2,6 GHz, and compiled with clang with \b AVX and \b FMA instruction sets enabled but without multi-threading.
	It uses \b single \b precision \b float numbers. For double, you can get a good estimate by multiplying the timings by a factor 2.

	The square matrices are symmetric, and for the overconstrained matrices, the reported timmings include the cost to compute the symmetric covariance matrix \f$ A^T A \f$ for the first four solvers based on Cholesky and LU, as denoted by the \b * symbol (top-right corner part of the table).
	Timings are in \b milliseconds, and factors are relative to the LLT decomposition which is the fastest but also the least general and robust.

	<table class="manual">
	<tr><th>solver/size</th>
	<th>8x8</th> <th>100x100</th> <th>1000x1000</th> <th>4000x4000</th> <th>10000x8</th> <th>10000x100</th> <th>10000x1000</th> <th>10000x4000</th></tr>
	<tr><td>LLT</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.42</td><td>5.83</td><td>374.55</td><td>6.79 <sup><a href="#note_ls"></a></sup></td><td>30.15 <sup><a href="#note_ls"></a></sup></td><td>236.34 <sup><a href="#note_ls"></a></sup></td><td>3847.17 <sup><a href="#note_ls"></a></sup></td></tr>
	<tr class="alt"><td>LDLT</td><td>0.07 (x1.3)</td><td>0.65 (x1.5)</td><td>26.86 (x4.6)</td><td>2361.18 (x6.3)</td><td>6.81 (x1) <sup><a href="#note_ls"></a></sup></td><td>31.91 (x1.1) <sup><a href="#note_ls"></a></sup></td><td>252.61 (x1.1) <sup><a href="#note_ls"></a></sup></td><td>5807.66 (x1.5) <sup><a href="#note_ls"></a></sup></td></tr>
	<tr><td>PartialPivLU</td><td>0.08 (x1.5)</td><td>0.69 (x1.6)</td><td>15.63 (x2.7)</td><td>709.32 (x1.9)</td><td>6.81 (x1) <sup><a href="#note_ls"></a></sup></td><td>31.32 (x1) <sup><a href="#note_ls"></a></sup></td><td>241.68 (x1) <sup><a href="#note_ls"></a></sup></td><td>4270.48 (x1.1) <sup><a href="#note_ls"></a></sup></td></tr>
	<tr class="alt"><td>FullPivLU</td><td>0.1 (x1.9)</td><td>4.48 (x10.6)</td><td>281.33 (x48.2)</td><td>-</td><td>6.83 (x1) <sup><a href="#note_ls"></a></sup></td><td>32.67 (x1.1) <sup><a href="#note_ls"></a></sup></td><td>498.25 (x2.1) <sup><a href="#note_ls">*</a></sup></td><td>-</td></tr>
	<tr><td>HouseholderQR</td><td>0.19 (x3.5)</td><td>2.18 (x5.2)</td><td>23.42 (x4)</td><td>1337.52 (x3.6)</td><td>34.26 (x5)</td><td>129.01 (x4.3)</td><td>377.37 (x1.6)</td><td>4839.1 (x1.3)</td></tr>
	<tr class="alt"><td>ColPivHouseholderQR</td><td>0.23 (x4.3)</td><td>2.23 (x5.3)</td><td>103.34 (x17.7)</td><td>9987.16 (x26.7)</td><td>36.05 (x5.3)</td><td>163.18 (x5.4)</td><td>2354.08 (x10)</td><td>37860.5 (x9.8)</td></tr>
	<tr><td>CompleteOrthogonalDecomposition</td><td>0.23 (x4.3)</td><td>2.22 (x5.2)</td><td>99.44 (x17.1)</td><td>10555.3 (x28.2)</td><td>35.75 (x5.3)</td><td>169.39 (x5.6)</td><td>2150.56 (x9.1)</td><td>36981.8 (x9.6)</td></tr>
	<tr class="alt"><td>FullPivHouseholderQR</td><td>0.23 (x4.3)</td><td>4.64 (x11)</td><td>289.1 (x49.6)</td><td>-</td><td>69.38 (x10.2)</td><td>446.73 (x14.8)</td><td>4852.12 (x20.5)</td><td>-</td></tr>
	<tr><td>JacobiSVD</td><td>1.01 (x18.6)</td><td>71.43 (x168.4)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>113.81 (x16.7)</td><td>1179.66 (x39.1)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr>
	<tr class="alt"><td>BDCSVD</td><td>1.07 (x19.7)</td><td>21.83 (x51.5)</td><td>331.77 (x56.9)</td><td>18587.9 (x49.6)</td><td>110.53 (x16.3)</td><td>397.67 (x13.2)</td><td>2975 (x12.6)</td><td>48593.2 (x12.6)</td></tr>
	</table>

	<a name="note_ls">\b *: </a> This decomposition do not support direct least-square solving for over-constrained problems, and the reported timing include the cost to form the symmetric covariance matrix \f$ A^T A \f$.

	\b Observations:
	+ LLT is always the fastest solvers.
	+ For largely over-constrained problems, the cost of Cholesky/LU decompositions is dominated by the computation of the symmetric covariance matrix.
	+ For large problem sizes, only the decomposition implementing a cache-friendly blocking strategy scale well. Those include LLT, PartialPivLU, HouseholderQR, and BDCSVD. This explain why for a 4k x 4k matrix, HouseholderQR is faster than LDLT. In the future, LDLT and ColPivHouseholderQR will also implement blocking strategies.
	+ CompleteOrthogonalDecomposition is based on ColPivHouseholderQR and they thus achieve the same level of performance.

	The above table has been generated by the <a href="https://gitlab.com/libeigen/eigen/raw/master/bench/dense_solvers.cpp">bench/dense_solvers.cpp</a> file, feel-free to hack it to generate a table matching your hardware, compiler, and favorite problem sizes.

	*/

	}