perf(solvers): name strings and getLp/passModel round trip dominate to_highspy (and gurobi) build time
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Newbie friendliness
- 48/100
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Activity status
- Active
- Tech stack
- numpy, python
- Domain
- backend-api-design, performance
Research direction
Start in linopy/solvers.py at Highs._build_solver_model and in linopy/io.py at get_printers_scalar, to_highspy, and to_gurobipy. Run the supplied repro.py with uv run python repro.py to establish the naming and conversion timings. Done means reducing the name-related build overhead while preserving the expected solver model names and behavior for both direct APIs.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
[!NOTE]
The following content was generated by AI.
Describe the feature you'd like to see
Once the sparse/CSR path makes building the matrices cheap, setting variable/constraint names is the largest single cost of the direct solver APIs. Found while working on #974 (sparse/CSR plan #972); measured on feat/csr-boundaries @ 0cf4a200.
Model with 200,000 vars, 218,000 cons and 596,000 nnz (frozen constraints), best of 5 runs:
| step | time |
|---|---|
to_highspy(m) (names on, the default) |
117–121 ms |
to_highspy(m, set_names=False) |
47–49 ms |
of which print_variables + print_constraints (build Python list[str]) |
28–29 ms |
of which h.getLp() + assigning lp.col_names_ / lp.row_names_ (list to std::vector<string>) |
13–14 ms |
of which h.passModel(lp) round trip |
11–12 ms |
to_gurobipy(m) vs to_gurobipy(m, set_names=False) |
566 ms vs 467 ms (+~100 ms) |
So names make to_highspy about 2.4x slower. In Highs._build_solver_model (linopy/solvers.py) the names are added after the model is built: lp = h.getLp() copies the whole LP out, names are set, and h.passModel(lp) copies it back in. That round trip copies the matrix twice only to attach names. get_printers_scalar (linopy/io.py) already builds the strings with polars ("x" + pl.Series(labels).cast(pl.String)), but .to_list() still makes one Python str per label, and every solver binding then converts them again. Gurobi (addMVar(name=...), setAttr("ConstrName", ...)) pays a similar ~100 ms.
Suggestions
- Avoid the getLp/passModel round trip in
to_highspy: build ahighspy.HighsLponce, with the matrix, bounds and names, and callpassModela single time. Or set the names without copying the LP out. - Make names cheaper or lazy: the default
x{label}/c{label}names carry no information beyond the index. The solution is already mapped back by position, so the names could default off for the direct APIs, or be set only when needed (e.g. writing a file from the solver object,explicit_coordinate_names=True). - If names stay on by default, build them in one vectorised pass (numpy
char/StringDTypeor polars) and pass them in the form each binding converts fastest, instead of going throughlist[str]twice.
Minimal reproducible example
Needs the freeze=True sparse path from #974 for the frozen constraints; the name cost is the same with dense constraints. Run with uv run python repro.py.
import time
import numpy as np, pandas as pd, xarray as xr
import linopy
from linopy import Model
from linopy.io import get_printers_scalar
linopy.options["semantics"] = "v1"
m = Model()
gen = pd.Index(range(2000), name="gen"); snap = pd.Index(range(100), name="snapshot")
rng = np.random.default_rng(0)
bus = xr.DataArray(rng.integers(0, 200, 2000), coords=[gen], name="bus")
p = m.add_variables(0, 10, coords=[gen, snap], name="p")
demand = xr.DataArray(rng.uniform(1, 5, (200, 100)), coords=[pd.Index(range(200), name="bus"), snap])
m.add_constraints((1.0 * p).groupby(bus).sum(sparse=True) == demand, name="balance", freeze=True)
m.add_constraints(p.diff("snapshot") <= 3, name="ramp", freeze=True)
m.add_objective((xr.DataArray(rng.uniform(1, 5, 2000), coords=[gen]) * p).sum())
M = m.matrices
print(f"vars={len(M.vlabels):,} cons={len(M.clabels):,} nnz={M.A.nnz:,}")
def best(f, n=5):
ts = []
for _ in range(n):
t = time.perf_counter(); f(); ts.append(time.perf_counter() - t)
return min(ts) * 1e3
print(f"to_highspy(set_names=True) {best(lambda: linopy.io.to_highspy(m)):6.1f} ms")
print(f"to_highspy(set_names=False) {best(lambda: linopy.io.to_highspy(m, set_names=False)):6.1f} ms")
pv, pc = get_printers_scalar(m)
print(f" name strings {best(lambda: (pv(M.vlabels), pc(M.clabels))):6.1f} ms")
h = linopy.io.to_highspy(m, set_names=False)
cn, rn = pv(M.vlabels), pc(M.clabels)
def assign():
lp = h.getLp(); lp.col_names_ = cn; lp.row_names_ = rn
print(f" getLp + assign names {best(assign):6.1f} ms")
print(f" passModel(getLp()) trip {best(lambda: h.passModel(h.getLp())):6.1f} ms")
print(f"to_gurobipy names/no names {best(lambda: linopy.io.to_gurobipy(m), 3):6.1f} / "
f"{best(lambda: linopy.io.to_gurobipy(m, set_names=False), 3):6.1f} ms")
Output (HiGHS 1.15.1, gurobipy restricted license, Python 3.13)
vars=200,000 cons=218,000 nnz=596,000
to_highspy(set_names=True) 117.2 ms
to_highspy(set_names=False) 47.4 ms
name strings 27.7 ms
getLp + assign names 13.3 ms
passModel(getLp()) trip 11.2 ms
to_gurobipy names/no names 566.4 / 466.6 ms
The HiGHS banner lines are left out. The name strings, name assignment and round trip add up to about 52 ms of the about 70 ms difference; the rest is allocation/GC overhead from the extra Python strings.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 257
- Forks
- 87
- Avg merge
- 23h 53m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 43
Getting set up
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from PyPSA/linopy
-
bug solver interface
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 84/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
performance sparse
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 25/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
documentation sparse
Difficulty 3/5 1-2 days Newbie friendliness 68/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Make the sparse path observable and controllable (.is_sparse, densify warning, per-call sparse=)Openenhancement sparse
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 35/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
enhancement model formulation
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 35/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
Similar issues
-
needs triage
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
Maintainers usually reply within 2 days
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 82/100
openvinotoolkit/openvino_notebooks#3665 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
bug
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 86/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
docs
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
benchmark-gap
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day