Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implement SAVEPER #5

Closed
ToddFincannon opened this issue Oct 7, 2017 · 3 comments
Closed

Implement SAVEPER #5

ToddFincannon opened this issue Oct 7, 2017 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@ToddFincannon
Copy link
Collaborator

SDE should support the SAVEPER setting in MDL files. This means that variable values would be saved less frequently than the TIMESTEP. Support should mean smaller data structs/arrays and therefore less memory and faster passing of the structs (to UI).

I forget if right the code looks at previous array values during execution. If so, this could be a bigger change than simply making smaller arrays. But also, if execution assumes arrays, we could ditch the memory benefits and create parallel structures for data passing. Different form of "complicated".

(moved from WorldClimate issue #235 filed by Travis)

@ToddFincannon ToddFincannon self-assigned this Oct 7, 2017
@chrispcampbell chrispcampbell changed the title Implement SAVPER Implement SAVEPER Dec 8, 2022
@chrispcampbell
Copy link
Contributor

@ToddFincannonEI: I keep meaning to ask you about this issue. It seems like maybe it just wasn't closed after you added SAVEPER support at the C level many years ago. Do you happen to remember if this issue was being left open for a reason (like, if there's some deficiency in the way SAVEPER is handled at the C level)? Or if it just wasn't closed after you added SAVEPER support?

@ToddFincannonEI
Copy link
Collaborator

Yes, it looks like the code to support SAVEPER in runModelWithBuffers implements this issue, so I think we can close it.

@chrispcampbell
Copy link
Contributor

OK, closing this as "fixed" in the sense that it was already implemented at an earlier date for the native C level. Note that I'm currently implementing support for non-1 SAVEPER values in the newer runtime and runtime-async packages, but that work is separate and being dealt with under #291.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants