Skip to content
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

[BUG] Split up partition loading and circuit generation #68

Open
stroblme opened this issue Nov 16, 2023 · 0 comments
Open

[BUG] Split up partition loading and circuit generation #68

stroblme opened this issue Nov 16, 2023 · 0 comments

Comments

@stroblme
Copy link
Member

As mentioned in #67 , resuming an experiment causes the generation of (potentially previously already generated) qasm circuits because the configuration parameters such as n_shots, n_qubits etc. are extracted while generating those circuits.
Originally, this was implemented because it saves a call to a separate node which just extracts this information.
However this leads to an overhead when resuming the pipeline.
A solution could be to introduce a separate node, that extracts the aforementioned configuration parameters and passes them to the circuit generating function if required (required in terms of the circuit does not exist yet).
But this may add an additional delay when using multiprocessing because the actual workload of extracting a handful single values from a csv is very small in relation to the overhead introduced by multiprocessing.
Therefore I suggest to generate the circuits conditionally. I.e. leave the structure as is, but add a flag when instantiating the nodes that indicates if the circuit has to be generated or if it already exists on disk.
The structural code and the information already exists and therefore implementation effort would be minimal.

@stroblme stroblme added this to the Journal Submission milestone Mar 10, 2024
@stroblme stroblme changed the title Split up partition loading and circuit generation [BUG] Split up partition loading and circuit generation Mar 10, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant