Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Commit 157944ef authored by Jakub Janák's avatar Jakub Janák
Browse files

added more text to the graphs

parent f49ecace
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
......@@ -158,10 +158,22 @@ To achieve this, I use two mutexes to ensure that updates are thread-safe.
However, the biggest challenge is ensuring Depth-First Search (DFS) is used instead of Breadth-First Search (BFS).
To address this, the method call is added to the thread pool, but only for the first neighbor does the thread continue its search.
The parallelized version of B&B performs much better than the synchronized version:
The parallelized version of the branch and bound (B&B) algorithm significantly outperforms
the single-threaded version.
I compared the performance of both versions, with the parallel B&B using 10 threads,
as this setup provides the best efficiency on my current computer.
The results clearly show that the parallel version offers a substantial performance
improvement over the single-threaded approach.
![Brute Force vs B&B](data_analysis/synchronized_vs_parallel_bb.png)
The scaling of the algorithm with varying numbers of threads is also impressive:
The parallelized version of the branch and bound algorithm scales efficiently.
I tested its performance by solving the same instance of the problem using different numbers of threads,
ranging from 2 to 10. The scaling observed was impressive.
However, I was unable to test with more than 10 threads, as my computer's hardware limits its ability to efficiently parallelize beyond that point.
As a result, I am concerned that any further increase in thread count would not reflect true
scaling improvements but rather be hindered by hardware constraints.
![Brute Force vs B&B](data_analysis/algorithm_speedup_across_thread_counts.png)
## Implementation
......
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment