Intel® oneAPI Math Kernel Library
Ask questions and share information with other developers who use Intel® Math Kernel Library.
Announcements
The Intel sign-in experience has changed to support enhanced security controls. If you sign in, click here for more information.
6743 Discussions

dgbmv versus doing it "yourself" (for tri or penta diagonal matrices)

Pierre_L_4
Beginner
229 Views

Hi all,

I need often (for i between 0 and 52 * 40 - 1 let's say) to calculate M_i * V_i + F_i where the matrix M_i is of size 2000 * 2000 and is not constant as a function of i, where vectors V_i and F_i are non constant as functions of i. The point is that M_i is either tridiagonal of pentadiagonal (even heptadiagonal) and that F_i as all its coefficients zero except maybe the first and the last.

Naturally I would like to use dgbmv, but due to the special format that M_i has tu be put in to be used with this function, I find it a bit prohibitive.

Do you intel guys have a benchmark of comparisons for lets say case where M_i triangular showing how faster using dgbmv for doing such a product is compared to doing it oneself ?

I could indeed do this test on my computer myself, but more generally, I was wondering is there where benchark documents of this kind, for blas lapack functions for instance ?

Thx in advance,

Regards,

Pierre

 

 

0 Kudos
2 Replies
mecej4
Black Belt
229 Views

You have stated contradicting requirements: (i) M is tridiagonal, pentadiagonal, ... and (ii) M is triangular. Which is the one of interest?

If you formulate M as a full matrix and then recast it into band-matrix format, that is an inefficient way and wastes memory. Hav you considered forming M directly as a band matrix?

Pierre_L_4
Beginner
229 Views

(ii) triangular was a typo sorry --> read tridiagonal

(i) was is not a typo : M_i is either tridiagonal, pentadiagonal or heptadiagonal : there are 3 cases (of course any tridiagonal matrix is penta and hepta diagonal an any pentadiagonal matrix is heptadiagonal etc, but I'm sure everyone understands what I mean by "cases")

In the tridiagonal case : I have of course considered forming directly M_i as a band matrix, but each M_i in my loop will in fact be used with dgbmv (and then needs to be stored as a band matrix) one time and with dgttrf (and then needs to be stored as three diagonals). That's why I was thinking, instead of using dgbmv, to rather store M_i as three diagonals and to do the dgbmv part myself, hence the question.

Reply