Gaurav Malik

Thanks Simran!This looks like exactly what I needed. I will test it and get back to you. One question though:I think (please confirm) that when m.optimize() is called for the second and then for th...

Hello Simran,Thanks for your reply!If I set the parameter ImproveStartGap = 0.5, then would it completely give up on moving the best bound?I would instead prefer that after a certain gap, the solve...

Hi Jaromił, Here you can find my python script and an excel dependency. I would love to get some feedback on some tips on reformulating this model to avoid numerical issues. Thank you very much in ...

Thanks Jaromił for the reply. I am using a big M trick in my constraints so scaling differently is a bit tricky. I will try some things and get back to you.  About the parameters, NodeMethod=2, Cro...

Hello Jaromil,  Indeed, it did not make an appreciable difference.  I have been able to solve feasibility problem with Obj = 0 within 40-60 seconds, the problem with an irrelevant linear obj functi...

Hi Jaromil!Thanks for this suggestion. I actually used the limit of 1e-3 and this way I could reduce the size of my Obj from 280k to 12k. This of course has implications for the optimality. I am cu...

"However, you might consider removing all terms with, e.g., a coefficient with ABS(coef) <= 1e-7" Thanks. This is a good suggestion. Is there a straightforward way to do this for a non-convex quadr...

Thanks Jaromil!For the coefficient ranges, I did try to re-scale the model to have all the ranges between 1e-4 and 1e+4 e.g., I needed to multiply my objective function (was already in 500k Euros s...

Thanks Jaromil!That makes perfect sense. Does this mean that such a model in practically unsolvable because of this extremely high number of auxiliary constraints and variables? Or is there still a...

That's exactly what's baffling me. The only difference between the two screenshots is that in the second screenshot case, my Obj = 0*Obj_original.