From: Arnaud Giersch Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 10:57:48 +0000 (+0100) Subject: Improve alignment in tables. X-Git-Tag: pdsec15_submission~28 X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/mpi-energy2.git/commitdiff_plain/6fbe9073516c2e43184d29b41cfcef71c8478a36 Improve alignment in tables. --- diff --git a/Heter_paper.tex b/Heter_paper.tex index 1d92130..dc87dc8 100644 --- a/Heter_paper.tex +++ b/Heter_paper.tex @@ -8,7 +8,6 @@ \usepackage{algorithm} \usepackage{subfig} \usepackage{amsmath} -\usepackage{multirow} \usepackage{url} \DeclareUrlCommand\email{\urlstyle{same}} @@ -764,7 +763,7 @@ be executed on $1, 4, 9, 16, 36, 64, 144$ nodes. \caption{Running NAS benchmarks on 4 nodes } % title of Table \centering - \begin{tabular}{|*{7}{l|}} + \begin{tabular}{|*{7}{r|}} \hline Program & Execution & Energy & Energy & Performance & Distance \\ name & time/s & consumption/J & saving\% & degradation\% & \\ @@ -792,7 +791,7 @@ be executed on $1, 4, 9, 16, 36, 64, 144$ nodes. \caption{Running NAS benchmarks on 8 and 9 nodes } % title of Table \centering - \begin{tabular}{|*{7}{l|}} + \begin{tabular}{|*{7}{r|}} \hline Program & Execution & Energy & Energy & Performance & Distance \\ name & time/s & consumption/J & saving\% & degradation\% & \\ @@ -820,7 +819,7 @@ be executed on $1, 4, 9, 16, 36, 64, 144$ nodes. \caption{Running NAS benchmarks on 16 nodes } % title of Table \centering - \begin{tabular}{|*{7}{l|}} + \begin{tabular}{|*{7}{r|}} \hline Program & Execution & Energy & Energy & Performance & Distance \\ name & time/s & consumption/J & saving\% & degradation\% & \\ @@ -848,7 +847,7 @@ be executed on $1, 4, 9, 16, 36, 64, 144$ nodes. \caption{Running NAS benchmarks on 32 and 36 nodes } % title of Table \centering - \begin{tabular}{|*{7}{l|}} + \begin{tabular}{|*{7}{r|}} \hline Program & Execution & Energy & Energy & Performance & Distance \\ name & time/s & consumption/J & saving\% & degradation\% & \\ @@ -876,7 +875,7 @@ be executed on $1, 4, 9, 16, 36, 64, 144$ nodes. \caption{Running NAS benchmarks on 64 nodes } % title of Table \centering - \begin{tabular}{|*{7}{l|}} + \begin{tabular}{|*{7}{r|}} \hline Program & Execution & Energy & Energy & Performance & Distance \\ name & time/s & consumption/J & saving\% & degradation\% & \\ @@ -904,7 +903,7 @@ be executed on $1, 4, 9, 16, 36, 64, 144$ nodes. \caption{Running NAS benchmarks on 128 and 144 nodes } % title of Table \centering - \begin{tabular}{|*{7}{l|}} + \begin{tabular}{|*{7}{r|}} \hline Program & Execution & Energy & Energy & Performance & Distance \\ name & time/s & consumption/J & saving\% & degradation\% & \\ @@ -1046,7 +1045,7 @@ degradation. \caption{The results of the 70\%-30\% power scenario} % title of Table \centering - \begin{tabular}{|*{6}{l|}} + \begin{tabular}{|*{6}{r|}} \hline Program & Energy & Energy & Performance & Distance \\ name & consumption/J & saving\% & degradation\% & \\ @@ -1075,7 +1074,7 @@ degradation. \caption{The results of the 90\%-10\% power scenario} % title of Table \centering - \begin{tabular}{|*{6}{l|}} + \begin{tabular}{|*{6}{r|}} \hline Program & Energy & Energy & Performance & Distance \\ name & consumption/J & saving\% & degradation\% & \\ @@ -1136,17 +1135,17 @@ degradation values while giving the same weight for both metrics. \begin{table}[!t] \caption{Comparing the proposed algorithm} \centering -\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|} +\begin{tabular}{|*{7}{r|}} \hline -\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Program \\ name\end{tabular}}} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{Energy saving \%} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{Perf. degradation \%} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{Distance} \\ \cline{3-8} -\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{} & EDP & MaxDist & EDP & MaxDist & EDP & MaxDist \\ \hline -\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{CG} & 27.58 & 31.25 & 5.82 & 7.12 & 21.76 & 24.13 \\ \hline -\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{MG} & 29.49 & 33.78 & 3.74 & 6.41 & 25.75 & 27.37 \\ \hline -\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{LU} & 19.55 & 28.33 & 0.0 & 0.01 & 19.55 & 28.22 \\ \hline -\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{EP} & 28.40 & 27.04 & 4.29 & 0.49 & 24.11 & 26.55 \\ \hline -\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{BT} & 27.68 & 32.32 & 6.45 & 7.87 & 21.23 & 24.43 \\ \hline -\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{SP} & 20.52 & 24.73 & 5.21 & 2.78 & 15.31 & 21.95 \\ \hline -\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{FT} & 27.03 & 31.02 & 2.75 & 2.54 & 24.28 & 28.48 \\ \hline +Program & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Energy saving \%} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Perf. degradation \%} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Distance} \\ \cline{2-7} +name & EDP & MaxDist & EDP & MaxDist & EDP & MaxDist \\ \hline +CG & 27.58 & 31.25 & 5.82 & 7.12 & 21.76 & 24.13 \\ \hline +MG & 29.49 & 33.78 & 3.74 & 6.41 & 25.75 & 27.37 \\ \hline +LU & 19.55 & 28.33 & 0.0 & 0.01 & 19.55 & 28.22 \\ \hline +EP & 28.40 & 27.04 & 4.29 & 0.49 & 24.11 & 26.55 \\ \hline +BT & 27.68 & 32.32 & 6.45 & 7.87 & 21.23 & 24.43 \\ \hline +SP & 20.52 & 24.73 & 5.21 & 2.78 & 15.31 & 21.95 \\ \hline +FT & 27.03 & 31.02 & 2.75 & 2.54 & 24.28 & 28.48 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \label{table:compare_EDP}