-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
How to pass the options? #19
Comments
what options? |
I see that options like |
Most of it is handled automatically to match the common solve interface. Tolerances, inital step size, qmin/qmax, declaring Jacobians, log functions, call mode, and output mode are all handled. I guess we miss a few that can be added as solver specific. |
Are the jacobian bandwidths inferred if specifying |
ahh, we missed banded Jacobians here. That would be worth adding for sure. |
That would be great. I think |
Interesting. Can you share that problem where it's fast? All of the cases in DiffEqBenchmarks.jl shows it's slow, so I'm curious what properties of the ODE allowed it to work well. |
One small glitch should be resolved quite easily. |
It's in my private repo and I've added you as collaborator. The relevant file is |
Try #22 . That model looks pretty nice. Would you mind submitting it to DiffEqBenchmarks after it's done and published? It would be a good one to keep testing and improving against. |
Yes. I'll submit it for benchmark after I'm done. It'd be good to have a large system among the examples. |
I can't figure out how the solver specific options in
ODEInterface
are passed tosolve
. Can you give an example?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: