Exclusion of unnecessary parameters from AdvancedTreeSearchLmImageAndGlobalCacheJob hash calculation

[Marvin84]

Recently, I discovered that one terabyte of my space is occupied by different AdvancedTreeSearchLmImageAndGlobalCacheJobs that differ only by transition distortion penalty (TDP) values. However, all TDPs are part of our dynamic search procedure meaning that they are not relevant for the static search space and the global cache.

I am opening this issue to discuss the most clean way to exclude this or other parameters from the hash calculation. After a short discussion with @vieting, we think there are two different scenarios one can explore:

1. Pass two separate crps to the AdvancedTreeSearchJob, where the additional crp, if not None, is used here. Otherwise the old behavior is performed.
2. Change the hash calculation here, with two possible options, and by using a flag that keeps the default behavior

• Deleted all non-relavant parameters from the RasrConfig if a default value within RASR is defined
• Set some constant value where no default value is available

Please let me know what are your thoughts, before I prepare a PR.

[JackTemaki]

This is possibly a duplicate of #430

I am not really familiar with the crp handling of RASR, so I can not tell what the best solution is, but deleting non-relevant parameters sounds like breaking existing setups.

[JackTemaki]

@Marvin84 would #446 be a viable solution to your problem?

[Marvin84]

This is possibly a duplicate of #430

I am not really familiar with the crp handling of RASR, so I can not tell what the best solution is, but deleting non-relevant parameters sounds like breaking existing setups.

I edited the original text, of course I meant that there is a flag that conserves the default behavior

[Marvin84]

@Marvin84 would #446 be a viable solution to your problem?

The question is: why isn't it merged? I was not able to go through all the discussions there

[JackTemaki]

The question is: why isn't it merged? I was not able to go through all the discussions there

@michelwi still had open changes requested, and I assume @NeoLegends just changed his priorities as there was not enough interest from the rest to have it solved.

[NeoLegends]

Yeah, #430 points at exactly the same issue. Feel free to take over #446. I have other priorities at the moment.