Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.
And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.
[RFC] Stop multi-thread supports.
See original GitHub issueMotivation
The current optuna supports multi-thread execution. However, it does not result in any speed gain in general use cases because of python GIL. Rather, the execution time can become longer when we specify n_jobs > 1. The multi-thread support just complicates storage codes and causes hard-to-catch bugs. For example, I suspect the thread-safety relates to #820 Additionally, it forces storage classes to copy data here and there, which increases overhead even at single-thread execution.
Proposal
I’d like to propose removing the whole multi-thread support and leave the n_job argument for future multi-process support.
I’d like to propose removing the whole multi-thread support and instead replace it with multi-process execution. It requires multi-process support by InMemoryStorage and some changes in Study logics e.g. study.stop
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Reactions:3
- Comments:13 (7 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Top Related Medium Post
Top Related StackOverflow Question
Troubleshoot Live Code
Top Related Reddit Thread
Top Related Hackernoon Post
Top Related Tweet
Top Related Dev.to Post
Top Related Hashnode Post
I updated the proposal. Even though the updated proposal is already mentioned in #1170, I think this problem is worth having a dedicated issue to discuss.
This issue was closed automatically because it had not seen any recent activity. If you want to discuss it, you can reopen it freely.