--- Job bienst1 Start 08/23/08 23:47:18 GAMS Rev 227 Copyright (C) 1987-2008 GAMS Development. All rights reserved Licensee: Stefan Vigerske G071106/0001CB-LNX Humboldt University Berlin, Numerical Mathematics DC5918 --- Starting compilation --- bienst1.gms(106) 2 Mb --- GDXin=/home/stefan/work/gams/models/LINlib/bienst1.gdx --- bienst1.gms(148) 3 Mb --- Starting execution: elapsed 0:00:00.008 --- bienst1.gms(123) 4 Mb --- Generating MIP model m --- bienst1.gms(124) 4 Mb --- 577 rows 506 columns 2,186 non-zeroes --- 28 discrete-columns --- bienst1.gms(124) 4 Mb --- Executing Cbc: elapsed 0:00:00.021 GAMS/Cbc 2.1 LP/MIP Solver written by J. Forrest Problem statistics: 505 columns and 576 rows. 28 variables have integrality restrictions. Calling CBC main solution routine... Coin Cbc and Clp Solver version 2.20.00, build Aug 23 2008 command line - GAMS/CBC -solve -quit Continuous objective value is 11.7241 - 0.01 seconds Optimal - objective value 11.7241 processed model has 520 rows, 449 columns (28 integer) and 2072 elements Pass 1: suminf. 4.00000 (24) obj. 11.7241 iterations 1 Pass 2: suminf. 4.00000 (24) obj. 11.7241 iterations 0 Pass 3: suminf. 3.21667 (10) obj. 32.5 iterations 554 Pass 4: suminf. 0.00000 (0) obj. 72.5451 iterations 221 Solution found of 72.5451 Before mini branch and bound, 1 integers at bound fixed and 231 continuous Full problem 520 rows 449 columns, reduced to 279 rows 208 columns - too large Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (0.11 seconds) Round again with cutoff of 66.463 Pass 5: suminf. 4.00000 (24) obj. 11.7241 iterations 1 Pass 6: suminf. 4.00000 (22) obj. 13.5016 iterations 44 Pass 7: suminf. 2.81957 (9) obj. 35.9774 iterations 266 Pass 8: suminf. 0.04418 (2) obj. 66.463 iterations 262 Pass 9: suminf. 0.00000 (0) obj. 66.463 iterations 188 Solution found of 66.463 Before mini branch and bound, 1 integers at bound fixed and 203 continuous Full problem 520 rows 449 columns, reduced to 306 rows 243 columns - too large Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (0.20 seconds) After 0.20 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting with objective of 66.463 - took 0.20 seconds Integer solution of 64.5 found by feasibility pump after 0 iterations and 0 nodes (0.26 seconds) 76 added rows had average density of 26.6184 At root node, 76 cuts changed objective from 11.7241 to 38.3198 in 100 passes Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 490 row cuts, 0 column cuts (63 active) in 0.200 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 1415 row cuts, 0 column cuts (11 active) in 0.168 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 2 (Knapsack) - 0 row cuts, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.048 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 3 (Clique) - 0 row cuts, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.016 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 4 (MixedIntegerRounding2) - 1052 row cuts, 0 column cuts (2 active) in 0.056 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 5 (FlowCover) - 127 row cuts, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.272 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 6 (TwoMirCuts) - 146 row cuts, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.056 seconds - new frequency is -100 Optimal - objective value 38.3198 Optimal - objective value 38.3198 After 0 nodes, 1 on tree, 64.5 best solution, best possible 38.3198 (9.20 seconds) Integer solution of 61 found after 98253 iterations and 132 nodes (18.22 seconds) Full problem 520 rows 449 columns, reduced to 377 rows 319 columns - too large Integer solution of 55.25 found after 99954 iterations and 146 nodes (18.49 seconds) Full problem 520 rows 449 columns, reduced to 416 rows 345 columns - too large Integer solution of 51.75 found after 108287 iterations and 186 nodes (19.49 seconds) Full problem 520 rows 449 columns, reduced to 424 rows 353 columns - too large Integer solution of 50.75 found after 112313 iterations and 216 nodes (19.97 seconds) Full problem 520 rows 449 columns, reduced to 432 rows 361 columns - too large Integer solution of 50.6667 found after 162248 iterations and 552 nodes (25.82 seconds) Integer solution of 49.2222 found after 162321 iterations and 553 nodes (25.83 seconds) Full problem 520 rows 449 columns, reduced to 464 rows 393 columns - too large After 1000 nodes, 353 on tree, 49.2222 best solution, best possible 40.072 (41.64 seconds) After 2000 nodes, 743 on tree, 49.2222 best solution, best possible 40.3632 (72.41 seconds) After 3000 nodes, 1067 on tree, 49.2222 best solution, best possible 40.7135 (99.29 seconds) Integer solution of 47 found after 1032686 iterations and 3978 nodes (123.46 seconds) Full problem 520 rows 449 columns, reduced to 488 rows 417 columns - too large After 4000 nodes, 1022 on tree, 47 best solution, best possible 41.3333 (123.72 seconds) After 5000 nodes, 1196 on tree, 47 best solution, best possible 42.0231 (144.93 seconds) After 6000 nodes, 1320 on tree, 47 best solution, best possible 42.7447 (160.90 seconds) After 7000 nodes, 1397 on tree, 47 best solution, best possible 43.2471 (174.30 seconds) After 8000 nodes, 1431 on tree, 47 best solution, best possible 43.6667 (185.35 seconds) Integer solution of 46.75 found after 1585981 iterations and 8861 nodes (194.08 seconds) Full problem 520 rows 449 columns, reduced to 488 rows 417 columns - too large After 9000 nodes, 1365 on tree, 46.75 best solution, best possible 44 (195.61 seconds) After 10000 nodes, 1296 on tree, 46.75 best solution, best possible 44.4789 (206.18 seconds) After 11000 nodes, 1198 on tree, 46.75 best solution, best possible 44.9259 (215.91 seconds) After 12000 nodes, 1032 on tree, 46.75 best solution, best possible 45.3333 (224.69 seconds) After 13000 nodes, 830 on tree, 46.75 best solution, best possible 45.75 (232.23 seconds) After 14000 nodes, 522 on tree, 46.75 best solution, best possible 45.75 (237.23 seconds) After 15000 nodes, 379 on tree, 46.75 best solution, best possible 46.25 (245.53 seconds) After 16000 nodes, 171 on tree, 46.75 best solution, best possible 46.5 (252.58 seconds) Search completed - best objective 46.75000000000001, took 1954248 iterations and 16448 nodes (255.49 seconds) Strong branching done 56 times (4611 iterations), fathomed 0 nodes and fixed 0 variables Maximum depth 23, 218 variables fixed on reduced cost Cuts at root node changed objective from 11.7241 to 38.3198 Probing was tried 18658 times and created 84399 cuts of which 42042 were active after adding rounds of cuts (9.257 seconds) Gomory was tried 9968 times and created 11528 cuts of which 2039 were active after adding rounds of cuts (4.772 seconds) Knapsack was tried 100 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.048 seconds) Clique was tried 100 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.016 seconds) MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 18658 times and created 36648 cuts of which 7920 were active after adding rounds of cuts (5.980 seconds) FlowCover was tried 100 times and created 127 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.272 seconds) TwoMirCuts was tried 100 times and created 146 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.056 seconds) Result - Finished objective 46.75000000000001 after 16448 nodes and 1954248 iterations - took 255.50 seconds (total time 255.51) Total time 255.58 Solved to optimality. MIP solution: 46.75 (16448 nodes, 255.59 seconds) Best possible: 46.75 Absolute gap: 0 (absolute tolerance optca: 0) Relative gap: 0 (relative tolerance optcr: 0) --- Restarting execution --- bienst1.gms(124) 0 Mb --- Reading solution for model m *** Status: Normal completion --- Job bienst1.gms Stop 08/23/08 23:51:37 elapsed 0:04:19.650