Bounds should not be sparse vectors, maybe a new data type... about cobrexa.jl HOT 3 CLOSED

I tested this in #113 and it seems that defining a new data type is not more efficient. In short, the benefit of getting rid of storing the "infinite" fluxes e.g. -1000 and 1000 in most models is not worth it. Maybe my implementation is not efficient though.

from cobrexa.jl.

I arrived at a similar idea while trying to interpret the meaning of "hole" in the bounds vector. Sparsity usually interprets it as "zero" (which means the reaction can't really happen), we'd like to interpret it as ±∞ because that's the point of missing bounds. And we're storing the -1000s and 1000s in most bounds anyway now. So I can definitely support this.

Moreover, we already require reactions to be densely identified by string IDs, so this will not really add any noticeable overhead.

from cobrexa.jl.

I tested this in #113 and it seems that defining a new data type is not more efficient. In short, the benefit of getting rid of storing the "infinite" fluxes e.g. -1000 and 1000 in most models is not worth it. Maybe my implementation is not efficient though.

Okay, I think my size test was wrong, I used sizeof... Maybe this is still worth doing!

from cobrexa.jl.