Resource Time Comparison

Resource Times:

Date / Time: 09/29/08 16:20:37

See the solver return definitions for optimal/feasible model and solve statuses. Solutions are not checked for how close they are to eachother. Resource times are considered the same, if they are within 10% of eachother. A solver is considered faster than another, if it is less than 50% faster than the other. A solver is considered much faster than another, if it is more than 50% faster than the other.

If a model was not solved optimal/feasible by both solvers, the resource time is considered the same. If a model was solved optimal/feasible by solver A but not by solver B, then solver A is considered infinitely faster than solver B. Similarly, if one solver has trace data and the other has no data, then the first solver is consideredinfinitely faster.

A solver is considered to have a better objective function value, if the relative objective value difference is greater than 1.00E-05 For objective values below 1e-1 we use absolute differences.

Tracefile 1 :	`LINDOGLOBAL-1.trc.convex`
Tracefile 2 :	`ALPHAECP-1.trc.convex`
Solvers used :	`LINDOGLOBAL`
	`ALPHAECP`
Modeltype(s)	`MINLP`
Threshold: Solver Faster	`10%`
Threshold: Solver Much Faster	`50%`
Threshold: Solver Infinitely Faster	`Other solver failed`

	Total	Obj LINDOGLOBAL better	Obj same	Obj ALPHAECP better
Solver LINDOGLOBAL infinitely faster :	`1`	`1`	-	-
Solver LINDOGLOBAL much faster :	`1`	`1`	-	-
Solver LINDOGLOBAL faster :	`4`	-	`4`	-
Solvers perform the same :	`17`	`1`	`15`	`1`
Solver ALPHAECP faster :	`1`	-	`1`	-
Solver ALPHAECP much faster :	`13`	`1`	`11`	`1`
Solver ALPHAECP infinitely faster :	-	-	-	-
Both solvers failed to solve optimally :	`1`	-	`1`	-
Total models: :	`38`	`4`	`32`	`2`

Solver return definition:

Outcome	Model Status	Solver Status
globally optimal	1 or 15	1
locally optimal/feasible	2 or 8 or 16	1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5

Resource Times:

Models for each resource time category. Listed are the solver resource times TIME(.) in seconds, as well as the ratio of resource times RATIO(.)for the two solvers if both solved optimally. Models not solved optimally by a solver have status listed instead of resource time.
Also listed are the objective values OBJ(.) using both solvers. The better solution found is listed in boldface. A solution is considered better, if the relative objective function difference is greater than 1.00E-05.
Solver resource time ratios for a particular model are listed only if both solvers are optimal and if one solver has resource time greater than 5.00E-02.

Solver LINDOGLOBAL infinitely faster - Obj of LINDOGLOBAL better:

Modelname	Time (LINDOGLOBAL)	Time (ALPHAECP)	Ratio (LINDOGLOBAL / ALPHAECP)	Obj (LINDOGLOBAL)	Obj (ALPHAECP)
`tls7`	`3602.9820`	`fail`	--	`2.25000000E+01`	NA

Solver LINDOGLOBAL much faster - Obj of LINDOGLOBAL better:

Modelname	Time (LINDOGLOBAL)	Time (ALPHAECP)	Ratio (LINDOGLOBAL / ALPHAECP)	Obj (LINDOGLOBAL)	Obj (ALPHAECP)
`stockcycle`	`310.0830`	`3600.2400`	`0.086`	`1.20532622E+05`	`1.23665843E+05`

Solver LINDOGLOBAL faster - Obj same for both solvers:

Modelname	Time (LINDOGLOBAL)	Time (ALPHAECP)	Ratio (LINDOGLOBAL / ALPHAECP)	Obj (LINDOGLOBAL)	Obj (ALPHAECP)
`batch`	`2.2470`	`4.1000`	`0.548`	`2.85506508E+05`	`2.85506508E+05`
`ex1223`	`0.0970`	`0.1600`	`0.606`	`4.57958240E+00`	`4.57958240E+00`
`ex1223b`	`0.0730`	`0.1300`	`0.562`	`4.57958240E+00`	`4.57958240E+00`
`meanvarx`	`0.0820`	`0.1200`	`0.683`	`1.43692321E+01`	`1.43692321E+01`

Solvers perform the same - Obj of LINDOGLOBAL better:

Modelname	Time (LINDOGLOBAL)	Time (ALPHAECP)	Ratio (LINDOGLOBAL / ALPHAECP)	Obj (LINDOGLOBAL)	Obj (ALPHAECP)
`tls6`	`3600.8170`	`3600.9000`	`1.000`	`2.07000000E+01`	`3.81000000E+01`

Solvers perform the same - Obj same for both solvers:

Modelname	Time (LINDOGLOBAL)	Time (ALPHAECP)	Ratio (LINDOGLOBAL / ALPHAECP)	Obj (LINDOGLOBAL)	Obj (ALPHAECP)
`alan`	`0.0250`	`0.0700`	`---`	`2.92500000E+00`	`2.92500000E+00`
`ex1223a`	`0.0220`	`0.0800`	`---`	`4.57958240E+00`	`4.57958240E+00`
`gbd`	`0.0090`	`0.0100`	`---`	`2.20000000E+00`	`2.20000000E+00`
`nvs03`	`0.0270`	`0.0100`	`---`	`1.60000000E+01`	`1.60000000E+01`
`nvs10`	`0.0170`	`0.0400`	`---`	`-3.10800000E+02`	`-3.10800000E+02`
`st_miqp1`	`0.0310`	`0.0000`	`---`	`2.81000000E+02`	`2.81000000E+02`
`st_miqp2`	`0.0440`	`0.0400`	`---`	`2.00000000E+00`	`2.00000000E+00`
`st_miqp3`	`0.0080`	`0.0100`	`---`	`-6.00000000E+00`	`-6.00000000E+00`
`st_miqp4`	`0.0060`	`0.0000`	`---`	`-4.57400000E+03`	`-4.57400000E+03`
`st_miqp5`	`0.0120`	`0.0400`	`---`	`-3.33888889E+02`	`-3.33888889E+02`
`st_test5`	`0.0290`	`0.0500`	`---`	`-1.10000000E+02`	`-1.10000000E+02`
`st_test6`	`0.0370`	`0.0200`	`---`	`4.71000000E+02`	`4.71000000E+02`
`st_test8`	`0.0290`	`0.0100`	`---`	`-2.96050000E+04`	`-2.96050000E+04`
`synthes1`	`0.0440`	`0.0700`	`---`	`6.00975902E+00`	`6.00975891E+00`
`st_testph4`	`0.0110`	`0.0100`	`---`	`-8.05000000E+01`	`-8.05000000E+01`

Solvers perform the same - Obj of ALPHAECP better:

Modelname	Time (LINDOGLOBAL)	Time (ALPHAECP)	Ratio (LINDOGLOBAL / ALPHAECP)	Obj (LINDOGLOBAL)	Obj (ALPHAECP)
`o7`	`3600.4330`	`3456.2900`	`1.042`	`1.51307117E+02`	`1.31653138E+02`

Solver ALPHAECP faster - Obj same for both solvers:

Modelname	Time (LINDOGLOBAL)	Time (ALPHAECP)	Ratio (LINDOGLOBAL / ALPHAECP)	Obj (LINDOGLOBAL)	Obj (ALPHAECP)
`st_e14`	`0.1490`	`0.1100`	`1.355`	`4.57958240E+00`	`4.57958240E+00`

Solver ALPHAECP much faster - Obj of LINDOGLOBAL better:

Modelname	Time (LINDOGLOBAL)	Time (ALPHAECP)	Ratio (LINDOGLOBAL / ALPHAECP)	Obj (LINDOGLOBAL)	Obj (ALPHAECP)
`du-opt`	`270.9360`	`3.0900`	`87.682`	`3.55634006E+00`	`3.55923932E+00`

Solver ALPHAECP much faster - Obj same for both solvers:

Modelname	Time (LINDOGLOBAL)	Time (ALPHAECP)	Ratio (LINDOGLOBAL / ALPHAECP)	Obj (LINDOGLOBAL)	Obj (ALPHAECP)
`du-opt5`	`2047.5980`	`12.8720`	`159.074`	`8.07365758E+00`	`8.07365758E+00`
`fac1`	`0.3610`	`0.1000`	`3.610`	`1.60912612E+08`	`1.60912612E+08`
`fac3`	`53.8090`	`0.5700`	`94.402`	`3.19823098E+07`	`3.19823098E+07`
`m3`	`1.6960`	`0.2500`	`6.784`	`3.77999999E+01`	`3.78000000E+01`
`m6`	`495.2620`	`3.5800`	`138.341`	`8.22568776E+01`	`8.22568769E+01`
`m7`	`3600.4280`	`11.6400`	`309.315`	`1.06756877E+02`	`1.06756877E+02`
`risk2bpb`	`2.2250`	`1.1000`	`2.023`	`-5.58761394E+01`	`-5.58761394E+01`
`synthes2`	`0.5900`	`0.2700`	`2.185`	`7.30353125E+01`	`7.30353125E+01`
`synthes3`	`4.3810`	`0.8500`	`5.154`	`6.80097405E+01`	`6.80097405E+01`
`st_testgr1`	`1.4540`	`0.0800`	`18.175`	`-1.28116000E+01`	`-1.28116000E+01`
`st_testgr3`	`11.1490`	`0.0600`	`185.817`	`-2.05900000E+01`	`-2.05900000E+01`

Solver ALPHAECP much faster - Obj of ALPHAECP better:

Modelname	Time (LINDOGLOBAL)	Time (ALPHAECP)	Ratio (LINDOGLOBAL / ALPHAECP)	Obj (LINDOGLOBAL)	Obj (ALPHAECP)
`fo7`	`3600.3070`	`356.4500`	`10.100`	`2.95437363E+01`	`2.07298251E+01`

Both solvers failed to solve optimally - Obj same for both solvers:

Modelname	Time (LINDOGLOBAL)	Time (ALPHAECP)	Ratio (LINDOGLOBAL / ALPHAECP)	Obj (LINDOGLOBAL)	Obj (ALPHAECP)
`tls12`	`fail`	`fail`	--	`NA`	`NA`