3 ms·
I think the approach is interesting but I don't understand how this considered theoretical. 10,000 elements for an N-Body problem is expected. What I am more c
by frozenport 13y ago
I think the approach is interesting but I don't understand how this considered theoretical. 10,000 elements for an N-Body problem is expected.
What I am more confused about is how this considered peak optimization.
Assuming they are utilizing doubles and doing both read and write I get the following computation:
(10000x10x8x2 bytes per second) or 12 Megabits per second vs the theoretical bandwidth of a PCIe of 40 Gbs?
Are they computationally limited and what is their memory access pattern?
- pron 13y agoThis is far from an optimal simulation, because the framework is so general. The spatial database gives you true isolated transactions that require (fiber-blocking) locks. In fact, the code is very naive, and that's our main point. Even naive code can scale well with this approach. We care more about scaling than sheer performance. So your calculation is wrong, as we're not trying to approach a theoretical limit (which would require optimizing the algorithm) but to demonstrate scaling of a naive algorithm. For example, instead of a single spatial join, each spaceship queries its surroundings: this is asymptotically (n^2 vs n) worse than a single join.