-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
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
Low computing efficiency #32
Comments
Why not write MARRMot in |
Currently we are not looking to redevelop MARRMoT in a new language. We are aware that it is not the most computationally efficient tool and we refer to the discussion section (Sect. 5.3.2) in Knoben et al. (2019) for a brief discussion on this. I will leave this issue open, in case someone decides to pick-up the challenge of further speeding up MARRMoT by translating this in a different language. Thanks for the suggestion. Reference: |
Dear @ltrotter , Thanks for your response. I have finished translating Xinanjiang model to Julia. The Julia version costs 4-5s in the calibration mode, (in comparison 40s in Rcpp, 30 mins in MATLAB). The carefully designed Julia MARRMoT is about 8 times faster than the cpp (i.e., 5s vs. 40s), and 300 times faster than MATLAB MARRMoT. In the Julia version, all module are same as the MATLAB MARRMoT, except for ODE. Regards References |
@ltrotter What do you think the strategy of cloing ODE in every simulation step's water balance solving? |
In R, Xinanjiang model calibration only cost about 40s.
But in
MARRMoT
, the calibration is quite low efficiency. With the same forings, half hour passed, still no output.Just wondering which part delays the computing efficiency? ODE or optimization function? Any idea?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: