Performance improvement idea for cardinality constraint encoders #1
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Negating the input of subsets_of_size_k is faster than negating the output, as the input is smaller. encode_at_most_k_constraint_binomial is now a generator, so we need to wrap it in list() where needed.
drasive
changed the title
drasive
changed the title
drasive
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Improves
encode_at_most_k_constraint_binomialexecution speed while keeping the output the same:itertools.combinationsis faster than the custom implementation.subsets_of_size_kis faster than negating the output, as the input is smaller.encode_at_most_k_constraint_binomial(...)is now a generator. Some callers expect the return value to be a list, the call needs to be wrapped inlist(encode_at_most_k_constraint_binomial(...))there. I did not integrate these changes with other parts of the code, I expect there are additional places where this needs to happen, so this PR can not be merged without some adjustments but may be useful to some.