- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi,
I need to solve two tridiagonal (non symmetric though) systems at each time step (coming from a split finite difference scheme). My strategy was as follow:
- define two context handles pt1 and pt2
- perform symbolic factorization (phase 11) on each system
- then at each time step, use a preconditioned CGS and solve the systems (phase 23)
Unfortunately, I found no speed improvment wether I used preconditioned CGS or not. Also, solving this tridiagonal systems with PARDISO is like 10 times slower than solving it with LAPACK dgtsv()...
Am I missing something ?
Thanks for your advices,
Xavier
I need to solve two tridiagonal (non symmetric though) systems at each time step (coming from a split finite difference scheme). My strategy was as follow:
- define two context handles pt1 and pt2
- perform symbolic factorization (phase 11) on each system
- then at each time step, use a preconditioned CGS and solve the systems (phase 23)
Unfortunately, I found no speed improvment wether I used preconditioned CGS or not. Also, solving this tridiagonal systems with PARDISO is like 10 times slower than solving it with LAPACK dgtsv()...
Am I missing something ?
Thanks for your advices,
Xavier
Link Copied
2 Replies
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
It seems unlikely that you could improve on the dgtsv algorithm, if you require its generality. The point of CG schemes is to solve problems with in-band sparsity, which would be exclusive of those where dgtsv could be applied directly.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Thank you for your reply.
Xavier
Xavier

Reply
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page