-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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
Building ´constraint_candidate_connection_flow_lb´ take too much time compared to ´constraint_candidate_connection_flow_ub´ #1037
Labels
Type: improvement
Improve something that already exists
Zone: formulation
How the model is formulated
Comments
Full Julia log from SpineOpt:
|
Why? I don't think these constraints do similar things, they just have similar names. If you look at the formulation you can see how much more complex constraint_candidate_connection_flow_lb is. |
After the developers' meeting, the main actions about this issue:
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
Type: improvement
Improve something that already exists
Zone: formulation
How the model is formulated
Describe the bug
When running the benchmark with the investment option, building the ´constraint_candidate_connection_flow_lb´ takes 30 times the amount of creating the ´constraint_candidate_connection_flow_ub´ constraint. They are, in principle, similar constraints, so the time to build them should not be that different.
To Reproduce
benchmark.jl
as follows:Expected behavior
These commands will run the benchmark case study 2 times. You will see on the SpineOpt log in the terminal that the lb constraints is the one take most of the time for each run, being almost 30 times the time to build the ub constraint.
We should expect a building time for the lb similar to the ub constraint.
Desktop (please complete the following information):
SpineOpt version 0.8.2
SpineInterface version 0.14.2
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: