Why spconv instead of torchsparse++ or fvdb?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 13.7k
- Forks
- 1.3k
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Hello, first thanks for making this fantastic work available to everyone!
I can see it is using spconv for sparse convolution implementation.
As far as I know, torchsparse++ or fvdb may show better performance when compared to spconv.
I am curious whether the model can show better performance with adopting (seemingly) better sparse neural network libraries.
Any thoughts?
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
No files, tests, or entry points are identified. Start by locating the current spconv integration and defining comparable benchmarks against torchsparse++ and fvdb; done would require measured performance results and a clear decision on whether migration is warranted.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- machine-learning
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100