Skip to content
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

Performance issue: lp solve CPLEX vs Clp #133

Open
svigerske opened this issue Feb 26, 2019 · 1 comment
Open

Performance issue: lp solve CPLEX vs Clp #133

svigerske opened this issue Feb 26, 2019 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@svigerske
Copy link
Member

Issue created by migration from Trac.

Original creator: anh509

Original creation time: 2014-06-20 05:33:28

Assignee: @tkralphs

Version: trunk (SVN)

The attached problem is solved in a few seconds with Clp as the LP solver. The option file contains

do_primal_heuristic 0
prep_level 0

and the build options are
../configure --enable-debug --enable-sensitivity-analysis --enable-tests

When CPLEX is used, however, the variable branched on in the root node changes and we solve many more LPs in the root node and further iterations. We end up solving more nodes too. The violated cuts found are different with or without cgl cuts. SYM with CPLEX is built with

./configure --enable-debug --enable-sensitivity-analysis --with-cplex-lib=-L/usr/local/CPLEX_Studio_125/cplex/lib/x86-64_sles10_4.1/static_pic/ -lcplex -lpthread -lm --with-cplex-incdir=/usr/local/CPLEX_Studio_125/cplex/include/ilcplex --with-lp-solver=cplex

@svigerske svigerske added bug Something isn't working Not Sure labels Feb 26, 2019
@svigerske
Copy link
Member Author

Attachment masterDesc_6.MPS by anh509 created at 2014-06-20 05:33:56

@tkralphs tkralphs removed the Not Sure label Mar 14, 2019
@tkralphs tkralphs self-assigned this Jul 30, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants