Path: news.mathworks.com!not-for-mail
From: <HIDDEN>
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Subject: Reducing memory requirements for tiled matrices
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:58:14 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Imperial College
Lines: 5
Message-ID: <k8010m$98f$1@newscl01ah.mathworks.com>
References: <k7ue91$mh1$1@newscl01ah.mathworks.com> <k7urig$875$1@newscl01ah.mathworks.com> <k7vie2$lru$1@newscl01ah.mathworks.com>
Reply-To: <HIDDEN>
NNTP-Posting-Host: www-05-blr.mathworks.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: newscl01ah.mathworks.com 1352894294 9487 172.30.248.37 (14 Nov 2012 11:58:14 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@mathworks.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:58:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: MATLAB Central Newsreader 2135880
Xref: news.mathworks.com comp.soft-sys.matlab:782759

> The following code uses the for-loop method I mentioned earlier ...  it will save you memory space, but at the cost of slower execution than with the use of the 'kron' function.

Yes, using multiple loops was actually my starting point, but then I removed the loops in an attempt to speed up execution. This worked pretty well for modestly-sized matrices (allowing execution to finish within a day or two). However, I've hit a wall with this slightly larger data size in that I now run out of memory.

I suppose a brute-force approach would be to get my hands on a 64-bit architecture. Or I could try keeping "some" loops and not others... but it's difficult to identify a good trade-off.