Skip to content
GitLab
Explore
Sign in
Primary navigation
Search or go to…
Project
T
tss
Manage
Activity
Members
Labels
Plan
Issues
Issue boards
Milestones
Wiki
Code
Merge requests
Repository
Branches
Commits
Tags
Repository graph
Compare revisions
Snippets
Build
Pipelines
Jobs
Pipeline schedules
Artifacts
Deploy
Releases
Package Registry
Container Registry
Model registry
Operate
Environments
Terraform modules
Monitor
Incidents
Analyze
Value stream analytics
Contributor analytics
CI/CD analytics
Repository analytics
Model experiments
Help
Help
Support
GitLab documentation
Compare GitLab plans
Community forum
Contribute to GitLab
Provide feedback
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Snippets
Groups
Projects
Show more breadcrumbs
Jakub Janák
tss
Commits
157944ef
Commit
157944ef
authored
3 months ago
by
Jakub Janák
Browse files
Options
Downloads
Patches
Plain Diff
added more text to the graphs
parent
f49ecace
No related branches found
Branches containing commit
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Changes
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
README.md
+14
-2
14 additions, 2 deletions
README.md
with
14 additions
and
2 deletions
README.md
+
14
−
2
View file @
157944ef
...
...
@@ -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.

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.

## Implementation
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
Preview
0%
Loading
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Save comment
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment