[Gmsh] "Re: GMSH parsing is very slow"
Al Sc
al.sc.gmsh at gmail.com
Thu Jan 31 15:19:34 CET 2019
Dear Christophe,
I tried out your gmsh-file with "Point{100+1:100+N} In Volume{1};" and it's
indeed much faster!
That indeed seems to be the solution I needed -- thanks a lot!
As I don't really know much about the internal functionality of gmsh, it
would have been almost impossible for me to come up with that solution on
my own.
>From your documentation it is clear that the input to gmsh is more than
just a geometry specification, and it's rather kind of a script which
generates the geometry.
However, given only the documentation, a naive user like me will conclude
that you do not *need* any advanced scripting functionality to generate a
basic model. E.g. that you can restrict yourself to "just using the
geometry-specification subset of the language" without any performance
penalty. Hence, a naive user concludes that:
" Point{100+1:100+N} In Volume{1};"
and
" Point{100} In Volume{1}; ...
... Point{10100} In Volume{1};"
are, in fact, equivalent (not only in semantics, but also in "parser
performance").
I'd suggest that you try to implement the model parsing in a way that the
"topology structure" is not immediately re-computed, but only invalidated.
Because, in my opinion, the observed performance-drop of gmsh with repeated
"Point In Volume" statements is still highly counter-intuitive, even to
users more advanced than me.
Best regards,
A.S.
Am Do., 31. Jan. 2019 um 14:53 Uhr schrieb Christophe Geuzaine <
cgeuzaine at uliege.be>:
>
> This was precisely the point of my example: if you embed the point after
> each point is created, you force a rebuild of the topology of the model. So
> the efficient script would be
>
> SetFactory("OpenCASCADE");
> Box(1) = {0,0,0, 1,1,1};
> N=10000;
> For i In {1:N}
> Point(100+i) = {0.25 + 5e-5*i, 0.1,0.1};
> EndFor
> Point{100+1:100+N} In Volume{1};
>
> Christophe
>
>
> > On 31 Jan 2019, at 14:48, Al Sc <al.sc.gmsh at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Christophe,
> >
> > my example files are scientific data, however originate from processing
> certain proprietary 3D models that were shared with me under certain
> restrictions. Therefore, it's difficult to share my original file with you.
> > However, I was indeed able to reproduce the issue using only a slight
> modification of your example file!
> >
> > Compare the following two files:
> > test1.geo:
> > %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%%
> > SetFactory("OpenCASCADE");
> > Box(1) = {0,0,0, 1,1,1};
> > For i In {1:1000}
> > Point(100+i) = {0.25 + 1e-4*i, 0.1,0.1};
> > Point{100+i} In Volume{1};
> > EndFor
> > %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%%
> >
> > test2.geo:
> > %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%%
> > SetFactory("OpenCASCADE");
> > Box(1) = {0,0,0, 1,1,1};
> > For i In {1:10000}
> > Point(100+i) = {0.25 + 1e-5*i, 0.1,0.1};
> > Point{100+i} In Volume{1};
> > EndFor
> > %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%% %%%
> >
> > The first file contains 1000 internal pts, and the second one contains
> 10 times as much.
> > Now run:
> > $ time gmsh -1 test1.geo
> > -> Takes 0.88 sec
> > $ time gmsh -1 test2.geo
> > -> Takes 75 sec
> > This is a nearly 100 (!!!) times increase in parsing run time, when the
> model size is increased by only a factor of 10.
> > This nicely illustrates what I meant by "quadratic growth of the parsing
> run time as a function of the number of internal pts."
> > As a consequence of this "quadratic growth", the run time for larger
> models quickly becomes enormous.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > A.S.
> >
> > Am Do., 31. Jan. 2019 um 14:31 Uhr schrieb Christophe Geuzaine <
> cgeuzaine at uliege.be>:
> >
> > Can you send a test file?
> >
> > I tried this, i.e. adding 1000 embedded points in a volume, and it is
> quite fast (< 2 seconds):
> >
> > SetFactory("OpenCASCADE");
> > Box(1) = {0,0,0, 1,1,1};
> > For i In {1:1000}
> > Point(100+i) = {0.25 + 5e-4*i, 0.1,0.1};
> > Point{100+i} In Volume{1};
> > EndFor
> >
> > Maybe you modify the model after each insertion of an embedded point,
> which would force a rebuild of the topological model?
> >
> > Christophe
> >
> >
> > > On 31 Jan 2019, at 13:04, Al Sc <al.sc.gmsh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Sir or Madam,
> > >
> > > some more details on the previously-reported case of extremely slow
> parsing of a gmsh file:
> > > The file contains 34795 points -- of which 23041 points are "Point In
> Volume" (e.g. embedded_vertices of a GRegion?). Moreover, it contains 4998
> "Plane Surface"s and one single "Volume". Almost all plane surfaces are
> triangles and quads -- except for <10 facets, which each have a very high
> vertex count (typ. 7000).
> > >
> > > I found out that if I remove all "Point In Volume" objects, then the
> parsing takes only 20 seconds. However, if all the "Point In Volume"
> objects are not removed, parsing takes around 3000 seconds. This led me to
> the hypothesis that there is some huge inefficiency with parsing gmsh files
> with "Point In Volume" (probably quadratic run time in N(PointInVolume)??).
> > >
> > > Furthermore, I analyzed the runs using "perf" (linux utility).
> > > Run 1 (about 3000 seconds):
> > > $ time perf record ./gmsh-3.0.6-Linux64/bin/gmsh -1 input_orig.geo
> > > Run 2 (about 20 seconds):
> > > $ time perf record ./gmsh-3.0.6-Linux64/bin/gmsh -1
> input_no_point_in_volume.geo
> > > In Run 1, "perf report" yields the following top-scoring functions:
> > > 11.57% gmsh gmsh [.] GModel::getEdgeByTag
> > > 7.73% gmsh gmsh [.] GEO_Internals::synchronize
> > > 6.80% gmsh libc-2.12.so [.] _int_free
> > > 6.31% gmsh gmsh [.] GModel::getVertexByTag
> > > 4.91% gmsh libc-2.12.so [.] malloc
> > > 4.53% gmsh gmsh [.] InterpolateCurve
> > > 4.40% gmsh libstdc++.so.6.0.22 [.] std::_Rb_tree_increment
> > > 3.88% gmsh libc-2.12.so [.] memcpy
> > > 3.69% gmsh gmsh [.] List_Nbr
> > > 3.35% gmsh libc-2.12.so [.] _int_malloc
> > > 3.24% gmsh gmsh [.] GEntity::GEntity
> > > 3.13% gmsh gmsh [.] avl_lookup
> > > 2.63% gmsh gmsh [.] gmshFace::resetNativePtr
> > > 2.53% gmsh gmsh [.] GEdge::addFace
> > > 2.52% gmsh gmsh [.] CompareVertex
> > > 1.97% gmsh gmsh [.] std::_List_base<GEdge*,
> std::allocator<GEdge*>
> > > 1.88% gmsh gmsh [.] GModel::getFaceByTag
> > > 1.76% gmsh gmsh [.] Tree_Action
> > > 1.74% gmsh gmsh [.] gmshEdge::degenerate
> > > 1.63% gmsh gmsh [.] CompareCurve
> > > 1.53% gmsh gmsh [.] std::_List_base<int,
> std::allocator<int> >::_M
> > > 1.38% gmsh gmsh [.]
> GModel::deletePhysicalGroups
> > > 1.23% gmsh gmsh [.]
> std::_List_base<GEdgeSigned, std::allocator<GE
> > > 1.10% gmsh gmsh [.] GVertex::addEdge
> > > 0.85% gmsh gmsh [.] List_Read
> > > 0.75% gmsh gmsh [.] GEdge::getBeginVertex
> > > 0.73% gmsh gmsh [.] GFace::computeMeanPlane
> > > 0.73% gmsh libc-2.12.so [.] free
> > > 0.67% gmsh gmsh [.] CTX::instance
> > > 0.65% gmsh gmsh [.]
> gmshEdge::resetMeshAttributes
> > >
> > > This suggests that maybe GModel::getEdgeByTag is eventually called a
> quadratic number of times in the number of PointInVolume-objects -- and
> this causes the drastic slow-down.
> > >
> > > Could you please investigate this? Thanks a lot!
> > > (As already mentioned, this issue also occurs with gmsh-4.x.x)
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > A. S.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > gmsh mailing list
> > > gmsh at onelab.info
> > > http://onelab.info/mailman/listinfo/gmsh
> >
> > —
> > Prof. Christophe Geuzaine
> > University of Liege, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
> > http://www.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~geuzaine
> >
> >
> >
>
> —
> Prof. Christophe Geuzaine
> University of Liege, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
> http://www.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~geuzaine
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://onelab.info/pipermail/gmsh/attachments/20190131/899b5eb8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gmsh
mailing list