Skip to content

Backports for v1.12 #624

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

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
May 11, 2025
Merged

Backports for v1.12 #624

merged 6 commits into from
May 11, 2025

Conversation

jishnub and others added 6 commits May 11, 2025 12:41
The `issymmetric` check tracks an `offset` that it uses to go from (row,
col) to (col, row). However, currently this doesn't account for the fact
that if a column is empty, entries in `colptr` will be identical. E.g.,
in #605, we have
```julia
julia> S = sparse([2, 3, 1], [1, 1, 3], [1, 1, 1], 3, 3)
3×3 SparseMatrixCSC{Int64, Int64} with 3 stored entries:
 ⋅  ⋅  1
 1  ⋅  ⋅
 1  ⋅  ⋅

julia> SparseArrays.getcolptr(S)
4-element Vector{Int64}:
 1
 3
 3
 4
```
The offset `3` corresponds to rows in the third column, as the second
column is empty. This PR checks for empty columns, in which case we may
exit the call immediately.

Fixes #605
The purpose of this PR is to not call `==` directly, and use `_iszero`
instead. This is to help integration with
[IntervalArithmetic.jl](https://github.com/JuliaIntervals/IntervalArithmetic.jl)
since `==` for our `Interval` type does not always return a Boolean.

Closes #609.

I did not change two checks using `===` since this would break the
behaviour for `-0.0`.
This improves performance:
```julia
julia> using LinearAlgebra, SparseArrays

julia> D = Diagonal(rand(3000));

julia> S = sprand(size(D,1), 0.01);

julia> @Btime ldiv!($D, $S);
  30.053 μs (0 allocations: 0 bytes) # master
  1.585 μs (0 allocations: 0 bytes) # PR
```
These methods do not require the `eltype`s to match exactly, and should
work as long as the values may be stored in the destination.
This prevents us from being influenced by things like `LD_LIBRARY_PATH`,
and ensures that we always load the correct `libsuitesparseconfig` that
came with our JLL.
I find it worth pointing out explicitly in the docs that LDLt, which
mathematically looks like a drop-in replacement for Cholesky that does
away with the positive definiteness requirement, comes with the
following caveats:

* It fails for a lot of matrices (for example,
`ldlt(Symmetric(sprandn(1000, 1000, p)))` basically never succeeds for
any relevant sparsity `p`) due to the requirement that all leading
principal minors be well-conditioned
* In CHOLMOD, `ldlt` is significantly slower than `cholesky` as it does
not have a supernodal implementation

So I made some docstring edits to clarify the relationship and tradeoffs
between `cholesky` and `ldlt`.

Citation for these claims: pages 106-107 in the CHOLMOD user guide at
https://github.com/DrTimothyAldenDavis/SuiteSparse/blob/v7.10.3/CHOLMOD/Doc/CHOLMOD_UserGuide.pdf
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 11, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 77.77778% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 83.87%. Comparing base (f3610c0) to head (4928d6a).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/solvers/cholmod.jl 20.00% 4 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           release-1.12     #624      +/-   ##
================================================
- Coverage         84.09%   83.87%   -0.22%     
================================================
  Files                12       12              
  Lines              9192     9187       -5     
================================================
- Hits               7730     7706      -24     
- Misses             1462     1481      +19     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@dkarrasch dkarrasch force-pushed the backports-release-1.12 branch from 4928d6a to e1817e8 Compare May 11, 2025 16:43
@dkarrasch dkarrasch merged commit d1b0cd0 into release-1.12 May 11, 2025
13 of 18 checks passed
@dkarrasch dkarrasch deleted the backports-release-1.12 branch May 11, 2025 16:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants