[SciPy-dev] the current state and future directions of the sparse solvers
Mon Apr 7 13:09:23 CDT 2008
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 19:55:33 +0200
"Ondrej Certik" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> these are probably mainly questions to Nathan. :)
>First let me say that the new sparse functionality of
> awesome, I really like it, it's just so easy and natural
>to work with
> it. Thanks for your work on it.
> Here I have some points:
> 1) Why do you want to remove umfpack wrappers from
>scipy? I suggest to
> leave wrappers in there (those can be BSD, cannot
> it will be much harder for scipy users to use umfpack
>(they would have
> to install scikits too). If so, could this warning
>message be removed?
> if isUmfpack and noScikit:
> warn( 'scipy.sparse.linalg.dsolve.umfpack will be
> ' install scikits.umfpack instead',
> 2) why was pysparse removed? are there any objections of
> among arpack and lobpcg solvers?
> 3) sometimes I also use blzpack - are there any
>objections if I
> implement it (if I find time of course) the same way
>lobpcg and arpack
> is in there?
> 4) I would love to see all available open source sparse
> eigensolvers to be callable from scipy. Is this the
> If this is the intention, I'd like to help with this too
>-- there are
> other good open source solvers out there, for example
>Primme (this one
> is GPLed, but that's not a problem, the wrappers could
> be in scipy, but users will install them themselves, or
> 5) The documentation in the info.py files is quite good,
>there is also
> some documentation at:
> I have some improvements, for example
> scipy/sparse/linalg/eigen/info.py is missing the lobpcg,
> patch fixes that.
lobpcg is currently disabled. See ticket
BTW, a svd for sparse matrices would be nice, too.
More information about the Scipy-dev