I'm currently trying to figure out, how the maximum number of computed solutions is related to the A4Options and other configuration properties (I use the API).
The strange thing is that with increasing scope the number of available solutions do not change. They are constant no matter if I set the scope limit to 30 or 100 elements or any other number.
If I modify the amount of symmetry breaking (A4Options.symmetrie) I get tons of solutions but the influence of the symmetrie option is rather unclear to me.
My question is: Does anybody know how to make sure that I'm able to generate ALL possible solutions?
Please let me know if you need further details!
Thank you very much in advance,
LostSpirit
If you are increasing the scope but the number of solutions stays the same, most probably your model is implicitly imposing those limitations (e.g. with singleton signatures).
Note that, if that is the case, then it is expected that changing symmetry breaking still changes the number of solutions.
Related
Our evolution of using DevOps is continuing (slowly but surely). One thing we've noticed is that some people are trying to but excessive estimates in for their time, but what we really want to be encouraging is for people to be breaking work down into multiple tasks.
Is there a way that we can set our DevOps work items to only accept a maximum value? I've had a look at the 'rules' and there doesn't seem to be anything there to let us do this, and because it's an out of the box field I don't think we can put a value limit against it.
I suppose what I want to understand is whether it would be possible to do this in some way? Could I do something with the existing 'Original Estimate' field or would I have to create a new custom field to have any chance of preventing people from putting in 100 hours for something that's actually more like 2?
If you are also using Boards, you could highlight work items where the original estimate is higher than a certain value. This would not prevent setting these values, but rather encourage the users to put in lower values.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/boards/boards/customize-cards?view=azure-devops
Beware that this might not really help the underlying issue: People must be convinced of the benefits of splitting up tasks, otherwise they will just work around the tooling. Like always putting in the maximum value or not putting in the actual work hours.
Is there a way that we can set our DevOps work items to only accept a
maximum value?
I am afraid that setting the value limit for the Original Estimates field is currently not supported.
As workaround, you could need to create a custom field of type Picklist, and then specify the available values in the picklist.
You could add your request for this feature on our UserVoice site , which is our main forum for product suggestions.After suggest raised, you can vote and add your comments for this feedback. The product team would provide the updates if they view it.
I have a dataset, on which i am working on Data Cleaning part, where one of the attribute or feature is having the values with various units. for example some of the values are as follow.
1 kg; 6 LB; 900 gms; 32 oz; etc.
If i use the standard scaler then it will not be fair as the values and their units are different, so cannot treat them as is.
Please do suggest how to handle such data.
I will recommend to change the different value to same unit first of all. For example, you can make all the value to kg or whatever suits best for you, and then perform the standard scale.
Thanks All, I did some research and found that i need to convert the various units into standard units and which follow internation norms referred to SI Units https://www.nist.gov/pml/weights-and-measures/metric-si/si-units , and same suggestion has given by #sharmajee499.
Moving ahead with this approach.. though this is going to be a lot of manual code, but seems there is no direct short and easy way.
Please do post if have any better solution.
I am use adehabitatHR to calculate HR's utilizing the LoCoH method. I am attempting to find the optimal settings, but and having trouble because at a number of settings I am getting the following:
y<-LoCoH.k(mastermatrix, k=6, unin="m", unout="m", duplicates="random")
Error in rgeos::createPolygonsComment(oobj) :
rgeos_PolyCreateComment: orphaned hole, cannot find containing polygon for hole at index 19
I generally understand what this means, however all of the advice for orphan holes and rgeos are in situations where the person is coding the unions themselves rather than using another package that feeds through.
I can get HR's at a number of different settings so I know my data is sufficient, but I want to make sure that I am optimizing my settings. Any advice as to what factors of my data is causing this would be helpful.
Do I need to do further QAQC on my location data?
Are there possibly settings I am missing?
I'm now facing a problem and I'm not sure what the right solution is. I'll try to explain it, and I hope someone has some good solutions for me:
I have two big data arrays. One that I'm browsing, with something between 50^3 and 150^3 data samples (usually between 50 and 100, rare worst case scenario 150).
For every sample, I want to make a query on another structure that is around the same size (so huge number of total combinations, I can't explore them all).
The query can't be predicted exactly but usually, it is something like :
structure has fields A B C D E F G (EDIT : in total, it's something like 10 to 20 int fields).
query is something like :
10 < A < 20 and B > 100 and D > 200.
Yes, it's really close to SQL.
I thought to put this in a database, but actually it would be a standalone database, and I can work in RAM to make it even faster (speed is an essential criteria).
I thought to try something using GPGPU but it seems it's a terrible idea and despite search can be parallel, it does't seem to be a good idea, searching an unpredictable number of results isn't a good application (if someone can tell me if my understanding has been right it would help me confirm that I should forgive this solution).
EDIT : the nubmer of results is unpredictable because of the query nature, but the it is quite low, since the purpose is to find a low number of well suited combinations
Then since I could use a DB, why not make a RAM B-Tree? it seems close to the solution, but is it? If it is, how should I build my indexes? Can I really do multidimensional indexes, since multidimensional search will always exist? probably UB-Tree or R-tree could do the job (but in my second data sample, I could have some duplicates, so doesn't it make the R-TREE non applicable?).
The thing is, I'm not sure I understand properly all those right now, so if one of you knows trees (and gpgpu, and even solutions I didn't think to), perhaps you could let me know which solution I should explore, learn, and implement?
GPGPU is not a suitable choice due to the fact that you are limited by their capacity and since you are not telling us the data size of these samples I am assuming that a titan x tier card will not suffice. If you could go really wild, TESLA or FirePro, then it is actually worth it since you mentioned that speed really matters. But I am going to speculate that these things are out of your budget, and considering that you have to learn CUDA or OpenCL to make something that will generally be a pain to port here and there, my take is "No".
You mentioned that you have an unpredictable number of results and this is a bad thing. You should develop a formula that will "somewhat" calculate the amount of space which will be needed otherwise it will be disappointing to have your program work on something for quite some time only to get a capacity error/crash. On the other hand, if the RAM capacity is not sufficient, you could work "database style" fetching data from storage when needed(and this is quite bothersome to implement due to scheduling implementations etc).
If you do have the time to go bespoke, here is a helpfull link. Remember, you are going to stumble a lot, but when you make it you will have learnt a tone of stuff:
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-fast-similarity-search-algorithms-and-data-structures-for-high-dimensional-vectors
In my opinion, an in memory database is the easiest and at the same time most reliable thing to do without compromising on speed. Which one to implement is on you. I think MemSQL is a good one.
Disclaimer: I know that it is bad to not use an 'ORDER BY' in SQL when sorted data is required.
I am currently supporting a Pro*C program which is having a wierd-problem.
One of the possible causes of the wierd-problem may be that the original developers (from a long time ago) have not used ORDER BY in their SQL even though the program logic depends on it!
The program has been working fine all these years and started showing problems only recently.
We are trying to pin the wierd-problem to the ORDER BY mistake (there are other cause candidates like a recent port from Solaris to Linux which took place).
What shadowy things on the database end should we look at that may have changed the old sort order? Things like data files etc?
Anybody have any experience with Pro*C on Solaris magically sorting the result-set?
Thanks!
Since you know that the program cares about the order in which results are returned and you know that the query that is submitted is missing an ORDER BY clause, is there a reason that you don't just fix the problem rather than looking to try to figure out whether the actual order of results may have changed? If you fix the known ORDER BY problem and the "weird problem" you have disappears, that would provide some pretty good evidence that the "weird problem" is, in fact, caused by the missing ORDER BY.
Unfortunately, there are lots of things that might have caused the order of results to change many of which may be impossible to track down. The most obvious cause would be a change in the execution plan. That, in turn, may have been caused either because statistics changed or because statistics didn't change enough or because of a patch or because of an initialization parameter change or because of a client configuration change among other things. If you are licensed to use the AWR (Automatic Workload Repository), you might be able to find evidence that the plan has changed by looking to see if there are multiple PLAN_HASH_VALUE values for the SQL_ID in DBA_HIST_SQLSTAT over different days. If there are, you'd still have to try to figure out whether the different plans actually caused the results to be returned in a different order. Beyond a query plan change, though, there are dozens of other possible causes. The physical order of data on disk may have changed because someone reorganized the table or because someone moved data files around on the disk or because the SAN automatically rebalanced something by moving data around. Some data may have been cached (or may not have been cached) in general in the past that is now cached. An Oracle patch may have been applied.
I suggest that change your physical table with view and make your required order in that view.
example
TABLE_NOT_SORTED --> rename to --> PHYS_TABLE_NOT_SORTED
CREATE VIEW TABLE_NOT_SORTED
AS
SELECT * FROM PHYS_TABLE_NOT_SORTED
ORDER BY DESIRED_COLUMNS
For response to comment:
According to this question and Ask Tom's Answer, it seems that since Oracle does not guarantee a default sorting if you do not use "ORDER BY", they are free to change it. They are absolutely right of course. If you need sorting, use Order By.
Other than that we can not say anything about your code or default ordering.