You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I have seen an example of a calculation (~200 atoms, ~50 SCF steps) where the task document size goes past 16 MB -- the vast majority of this due to the onsite_density_matrix in the OUTCAR.
Creating this issue to keep an eye on it. Possibilities are (1) a bug in parsing the matrix, (2) a sub-optimal representation of the matrix, (3) the possibility we shouldn't be storing this regardless except for the last SCF step. I have not had an opportunity to investigate further yet, if anyone wants a test file let me know.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I agree it would be better to handle this in the drone directly. Do you know of any potential uses for the onsite_density_matrix data? As in, is there any downside to always removing it?
@acrutt brought this to my attention, we can share the example file privately if it's helpful.
I don't think this is data we'd commonly need... I think I'm actually to blame for this, I added the parsing to the Outcar two years ago, though I can't recall the context now.
In the example file, it ends up being a list of dicts (15504 elements) keyed by spin (+1, -1).
I think we could probably safely remove the key from the drone, and probably the way this data is represented could improved at a later date in pymatgen, because I think the current representation of the data is basically 1-to-1 equivalent of how it's stored in the Outcar, except as a list of dicts, and I don't think this is very sensible.
I have seen an example of a calculation (~200 atoms, ~50 SCF steps) where the task document size goes past 16 MB -- the vast majority of this due to the
onsite_density_matrix
in the OUTCAR.Creating this issue to keep an eye on it. Possibilities are (1) a bug in parsing the matrix, (2) a sub-optimal representation of the matrix, (3) the possibility we shouldn't be storing this regardless except for the last SCF step. I have not had an opportunity to investigate further yet, if anyone wants a test file let me know.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: