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

Problem: simulations may not need to use uint64_t throughout; investigate uint32_t and scaling #88

Open
michael-okeefe opened this issue Aug 23, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
benchmarking Related to benchmarking performance low-priority "Nice to have" but not necessary; prioritize lower
Milestone

Comments

@michael-okeefe
Copy link
Member

Problem Description

As a hypothesis, we should be able to run faster if we were using uint32_t vs uint64_t for the flow data. This assumption should first be checked via measurement. If it is indeed the case, we may wish to investigate whether uint32_t can be used.

The switch to uint64_t was done out of an abundance of caution as flow magnitudes were approaching the maximum limit of uint32_t. However, this problem should be able to be circumvented through use of scaling. Currently, all flows are simulated in Watts. However, the scale could be determined automatically perhaps or we could temporarily change to uint64_t when doing efficiency conversion and the like.

Either way, we should investigate whether this change makes a difference or not and then go from there.

@michael-okeefe michael-okeefe added low-priority "Nice to have" but not necessary; prioritize lower benchmarking Related to benchmarking performance labels Aug 23, 2024
@michael-okeefe michael-okeefe added this to the 2024 (Year End) milestone Aug 23, 2024
@michael-okeefe michael-okeefe modified the milestones: 2024 (Year End), 2025+ Jan 13, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
benchmarking Related to benchmarking performance low-priority "Nice to have" but not necessary; prioritize lower
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant