dolfin team mailing list archive

["Alessio Quaglino" <alessio@xxxxxx>]

Ok, I've tried this example (my code uses a more complicate mixed
formulation though):

name = "Xs"
element2 = VectorElement("Discontinuous Lagrange", "tetrahedron", 0, 6) u 
= TrialFunction(element2)
psi = TestFunction(element2)
a = dot(u, psi) * dx

and the generated tensor is:

    // Compute element tensor
    A[0] = 0.166666666666666*G0_;
    A[1] = 0;
    A[2] = 0;
    A[3] = 0;
    A[4] = 0;
    A[5] = 0;
    A[6] = 0;
    A[7] = 0.166666666666666*G0_;
    A[8] = 0;
    A[9] = 0;
    A[10] = 0;
    A[11] = 0;
    A[12] = 0;
    A[13] = 0;
    A[14] = 0.166666666666666*G0_;
    A[15] = 0;
    A[16] = 0;
    A[17] = 0;
    A[18] = 0;
    A[19] = 0;
    A[20] = 0;
    A[21] = 0.166666666666666*G0_;
    A[22] = 0;
    A[23] = 0;
    A[24] = 0;
    A[25] = 0;
    A[26] = 0;
    A[27] = 0;
    A[28] = 0.166666666666666*G0_;
    A[29] = 0;
    A[30] = 0;
    A[31] = 0;
    A[32] = 0;
    A[33] = 0;
    A[34] = 0;
    A[35] = 0.166666666666666*G0_;

hence, I guess, those elements are never computed but are considered while
assembling the matrix (at least to check they are zero), while in this
case it would be faster to assemble directly a "diagonal vector", but I
think this a minor improvement.

Also, the tensor is assembled cellwise, and I don't know how often
tabulate_tensor() is called by the outside (the assembler).

Finally, my mixed formulation uses this "Xs" form to build the biggest
block of the matrix, however in the 324 generated components I couldn't
find the same pattern as in Xs.

Alessio

PS I'm asking all this because I find weird that the LU factorization of
the tensor is 4-5 times faster than its assembly.


> I think this is already handled. The code generated by FFC is optimized
so that things that are known to be zero a priori are never computed.
>
> Try the simplest possible example you can think of and look at the
generated code (the function tabulate_tensor) and see if this is
correct. (And let us know what you find.)
>
> /Anders
>
>
> Alessio Quaglino wrote:
>> I'm wondering if it's possible to tell FFC that he doesn't have to test
all the basis functions against each other, but only against themself
once, so that I get only the diagonal terms of the matrix. I guess this
would speedup *a lot* the assembly in the case of piecewise elements
having support on only one tetrahedra, or the case when you need only
diagonal elements. Am I right or this special case is already handled?
Can
>> I use a special notation to achieve this aim? Thanks.
>>
>> Alessio
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FFC-dev mailing list
>> FFC-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/ffc-dev
>