Quote:
Originally Posted by charybdis
I was caught out by the fact that the duplication rate is substantially lower than it was on the 31/32 runs; Curtis, you were right about 32/32 needing 30% more *unique* relations than 31/32.
I can't immediately see why raising the lpb on the rational side while sieving on the algebraic side ought to have anything to do with the duplication rate, but I'm not a number theorist so I'd appreciate it if someone could explain this.
It's looking like 32/32 is a win at this size. As usual I'll have more details once I've got the matrix size down.

There's a strong chance it's just a lucky polynomial with betterthanavg duplication rate. I could see a small improvement in uniquetoraw ratio if this run needed a smaller Q range (i.e. much better yield), but otherwise I wager it's just luck.
I'm afraid the tradeoff of faster sieving vs larger matrix gets worse if we go above 32LP; but I also believe 32/33 is fastest at C193 (I helped someone off the forum run ~10 jobs at that size, we did a bunch of work on parameters). On this job, I hope that tradeoff proves worth it.