20220913, 13:47  #133 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE
10100111110_{2} Posts 
If you had sieved a larger Q range with the high yield, duplicates still would have occurred more often, but of course this means it would have been greatly oversieved.

20220913, 15:52  #134  
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
160B_{16} Posts 
Quote:
In this case, your outcome suggests you left a little speed on the table by starting with Q a bit too high lower Q are faster to sieve, but will produce more duplicates. I didn't look up the params and qrange you used, so I can't be more precise. 

20220913, 16:01  #135 
Sep 2009
2^{2}·607 Posts 
You said to sieve from 25M to 100M, with lims of 134M. Sieving from about 100M to 175M should have got enough relations with a lower duplicate rate. (Of course you would have to have test sieved up to 175M first.)
Sieving below the lims (factor base sizes) produces a higher yield, but more of them will be duplicates the lower you go. So sieving about half each side of the lims usually works best. Obviously if the yield drops fast with higher Q then sieve as low as necessary to get enough relations. 
20220913, 20:51  #136 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
3^{3}·11·19 Posts 
Another way to phrase Chris' advice is that if your highest Q is below lim, your lim is too big.
Sieving from 25M to 100M means lim should be 67M on the sieve side. 67/100 or 67/134 with the smaller lim on sieve side would likely have been faster for this job, and Q from 2095M hits both my ruleofthumb for Qmax to be 5x to 6x Qmin and Chris' guidance to have sieveside lim about in the middle of the Q range. SNFS jobs work fine with Qmax a higher multiple of Qmin, so Q=1595M is fine for SNFS. Note that GGNFS slows down a bit when lim's grow above a power of two, which is why specifically 67M and 134M are such common lim choices; in general, 67M will always be faster than 80M because 80M is barely above a power of two. I never use lim's between 33M45M, 67M95M, and 134180M for this reason. Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 20220913 at 20:52 
20220915, 05:58  #137  
Aug 2020
79*6581e4;3*2539e3
659 Posts 
Ok, thanks, that's unfortunate, but very good advice. I was wondering how to estimate the qrange without doing a full sieve and look at the duplicate ratio.
Quote:
Code:
MQ norm_yield 25 3647 50 3791 75 3759 100 3498 125 3366 I took the params for this specific number straight from CADO but the Qrange from general nfs@home experience for numbers that size. Apparently it didn't match. Last fiddled with by bur on 20220915 at 05:58 

20220915, 06:05  #138 
Aug 2020
79*6581e4;3*2539e3
659 Posts 
Results for aliquot C174_1992_1695 (didn't loose the 7):
Code:
p82 factor: 3624621364325232093251368039886141925793212945379537167589424077672470583327124917 p93 factor: 129831914655437243002636324508831589681241737727491941396935308448015013059011667938456214033 Last fiddled with by bur on 20220915 at 06:05 
20220915, 09:32  #139 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE
53E_{16} Posts 
4_430m is done! It splits as:
Code:
p68 factor: 60460248666934940458806521783893530240379067017235037404134666098433 p189 factor: 114036829378480016981222258595031044238787130701816847117534396072226125060455954819230028534439203604683952601623241750062475969768637379406861448640753325928202256154633651815331944481759 This was the first one where I used the new OpenMP branch of msieve, it rocks! Not yet in FactorDB because of their power outage; please remind me to put the factors there if I forget. 
20220915, 15:11  #140 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
3^{3}·11·19 Posts 
We cannot know the duplicate range in advance. However, GNFS jobs all behave very similarly, so a bit of experience (ok, a lot of experience) guides us to the right number of raw relations to target that will give us a decent matrix. Sometimes we get more uniques than we expected, and the matrix comes out smaller / nicer. Other times it's the opposite, and we have to go back and sieve another 10 million Q.

20220927, 05:26  #141 
Jul 2003
So Cal
19×137 Posts 
8m7_293 is done.

20220929, 17:42  #142 
Jul 2003
So Cal
19×137 Posts 
As is 8p7_293.

20221002, 01:34  #143 
Sep 2008
Kansas
2^{5}×7×17 Posts 
Taking 177__227_5m1_2. It can be moved to Queued for PostProcessing because it appears it may be oversieved.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
2022 14d post processing reservations and results  swellman  NFS@Home  177  20230102 12:40 
2021 “small” 15e post processing reservations and results  swellman  NFS@Home  275  20211229 16:57 
2020 “small” 15e post processing reservations and results  pinhodecarlos  NFS@Home  116  20201231 16:44 
2020 15e post processing reservations and results  swellman  NFS@Home  112  20201229 22:58 
2019 14e post processing reservations and results  swellman  NFS@Home  862  20191231 10:51 