Open johnyf opened 10 years ago
An interesting comparison of cvxopt
with pulp
, its default solver, and with glpk
concludes:
The bottom line is:
cvxopt_glpk is 2 to 10 times faster than cvxopt,
cvxopt_glpk and cvxopt are 10 to 70 times faster than PuLP.
This difference is especially significant on small problems.
The last comment is of great interest to usage in tulip
partitioning algorithms.
The comparison is relevant also to the branch pulp
.
Optimize the heavily used functions and methods in
polytope
. Possibly by pushing some things toC
usingCython
(optional, i.e., installation shouldn't break in case compilation fails). The profiler says: