<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Hello, in Intel® oneAPI Math Kernel Library</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/QR-factorization-without-pivoting/m-p/1008966#M19137</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;The code in the example operates&amp;nbsp;with the matrix&amp;nbsp;like it is&amp;nbsp;stored in row-major storage, however LAPACK interfaces assume matrices are in column-major storage. (Some details could found&amp;nbsp;at&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://software.intel.com/en-us/node/520868"&gt;https://software.intel.com/en-us/node/520868&lt;/A&gt;,&amp;nbsp;Matrix Layout paragraph&amp;nbsp;)&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Replacing row-major "A[2] = A[5] = 0;" with column-major&amp;nbsp;"A[6] = A[7] = 0;" (and adding "x[2] = 1.0;")&amp;nbsp;results correct solution.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;You may want to try LAPACKE interface if you would like to operate with input matrices stored row-major.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;As of QRF and QP3: QRF is faster. Difference could be up to 2x in some cornercases (too small matrix, or medium matrix and many threads). Introducing fixed (JPVT(J).ne.0)&amp;nbsp;columns in QP3 factorization improves it performance: the more fixed columns, the closer QP3 performance to QR.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Best regards,&lt;BR /&gt;
	Alexander&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:07:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Alexander_K_Intel3</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-04-08T18:07:00Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>QR factorization without pivoting</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/QR-factorization-without-pivoting/m-p/1008965#M19136</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I'm trying to compute the solution of a singular square system using a QR factorization. When I'm using a QR factorization with pivoting (i.e. &lt;EM&gt;?geqp3&lt;/EM&gt;), everything works OK. However, I'm concerned about the cost of pivoting, and I'd rather use &lt;EM&gt;?geqrf&lt;/EM&gt;. The problem is that the computed vector is in this case not a solution of the original system, as shown in the code attached. Do you see what I'm doing wrong ?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Also, could you comment on the performance of&amp;nbsp;&lt;EM&gt;?geqp3 &lt;/EM&gt;vs.&lt;EM&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;EM style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 19.5120010375977px;"&gt;?geqrf&lt;/EM&gt;&amp;nbsp;?&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Thank you.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2015 14:33:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/QR-factorization-without-pivoting/m-p/1008965#M19136</guid>
      <dc:creator>asd__asdqwe</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-04-03T14:33:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hello,</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/QR-factorization-without-pivoting/m-p/1008966#M19137</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;The code in the example operates&amp;nbsp;with the matrix&amp;nbsp;like it is&amp;nbsp;stored in row-major storage, however LAPACK interfaces assume matrices are in column-major storage. (Some details could found&amp;nbsp;at&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://software.intel.com/en-us/node/520868"&gt;https://software.intel.com/en-us/node/520868&lt;/A&gt;,&amp;nbsp;Matrix Layout paragraph&amp;nbsp;)&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Replacing row-major "A[2] = A[5] = 0;" with column-major&amp;nbsp;"A[6] = A[7] = 0;" (and adding "x[2] = 1.0;")&amp;nbsp;results correct solution.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;You may want to try LAPACKE interface if you would like to operate with input matrices stored row-major.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;As of QRF and QP3: QRF is faster. Difference could be up to 2x in some cornercases (too small matrix, or medium matrix and many threads). Introducing fixed (JPVT(J).ne.0)&amp;nbsp;columns in QP3 factorization improves it performance: the more fixed columns, the closer QP3 performance to QR.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Best regards,&lt;BR /&gt;
	Alexander&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:07:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/QR-factorization-without-pivoting/m-p/1008966#M19137</guid>
      <dc:creator>Alexander_K_Intel3</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-04-08T18:07:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hello,</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/QR-factorization-without-pivoting/m-p/1008967#M19138</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Thank you very much for your very insightful comment !&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2015 11:40:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/QR-factorization-without-pivoting/m-p/1008967#M19138</guid>
      <dc:creator>asd__asdqwe</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-04-09T11:40:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

