TIGHT-TARDY PROGRESSIVE IDLING-FREE 1-MACHINE PREEMPTIVE SCHEDULING BY HEURISTIC’S EFFICIENT JOB ORDER INPUT
Keywords:preemptive single machine job scheduling, total tardiness, heuristic, ascending/descending job order, computation time, efficient job order.Preemptive single machine job scheduling, Total tardiness, Heuristic, Ascending job order, Descending job order, Computation time, Efficient job order
Background. In setting a problem of minimizing total tardiness by the heuristic based on remaining available and processing periods, there are two opposite ways to input the data: the job release dates are given in either ascending or descending order. It was recently ascertained that scheduling a few equal-length jobs is expectedly faster by ascending order, whereas scheduling 30 to 70 equal-length jobs is 1.5 % to 2.5 % faster by descending order. For the number of equal-length jobs between roughly 90 and 250, the ascending job order again results in shorter computation times.
Objective. The goal is to ascertain whether the job order input is significant in scheduling by using the heuristic for the case when the jobs have different lengths. Job order efficiency will be studied on tight-tardy progressive idling-free 1-machine preemptive scheduling.
Methods. To achieve the said goal, a computational study is carried out with a purpose to estimate the averaged computation time for both ascending and descending orders of job release dates. Instances of the job scheduling problem are generated so that schedules which can be obtained trivially, without the heuristic, are excluded.
Results. On average, the descending job order input gives a tiny advantage in computation time. This advantage decreases as the number of jobs increases. The decrement resembles a steep exponential decrease. The factual advantage is so insignificant that even after solving long series of job scheduling problems the saved computational time cannot be counted in minutes, not speaking about hours as it was for the case of equal-length jobs.
Conclusions. The significance of the job order input is much lower than that for the case of equal-length jobs. Theoretically, the heuristic’s efficient job order input does exist but its efficiency can be practically used only by working on extremely long series of scheduling problems where the number of jobs should not exceed 300.
V.V. Romanuke, “Efficient exact minimization of total tardiness in tight-tardy progressive single machine scheduling with idling-free preemptions of equal-length jobs”, KPI Sci. News, no. 1, pp. 27–39, 2020. doi: 10.20535/kpi-sn.2020.1.180877
W.-Y. Ku and J. C. Beck, “Mixed Integer Programming models for job shop scheduling: A computational analysis”, Comp. Oper. Res., vol. 73, pp. 165–173, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.cor.2016.04.006
F. Jaramillo and M. Erkoc, “Minimizing total weighted tardiness and overtime costs for single machine preemptive scheduling”, Comp. Indust. Eng., vol. 107, pp. 109–119, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2017.03.012
R. Panneerselvam, “Simple heuristic to minimize total tardiness in a single machine scheduling problem”, Int. J. Adv. Manufact. Technol., vol. 30, iss. 7-8, pp. 722–726, 2006. doi: 10.1007/s00170-005-0102-1
D. Rupanetti and H. Salamy, “Task allocation, migration and scheduling for energy-efficient real-time multiprocessor architectures”, J. Syst. Architect., vol. 98, pp. 17–26, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.sysarc.2019.06.003
V.V. Romanuke, “Heuristic’s job order efficiency in tight-tardy progressive idling-free 1-machine preemptive scheduling of equal-length jobs”, KPI Sci. News, no. 2, pp. 64–73, 2020. doi: 10.20535/kpi-sn.2020.2.181869
R. Kneusel, Random Numbers and Computers. Springer International Publishing, 2018, 260 p. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-77697-2
V.V. Romanuke, “Job order input for efficient exact minimization of total tardiness in tight-tardy progressive single machine scheduling with idling-free preemptions”, Scientific Papers of O.S. Popov Odesa National Academy of Telecommunications, no. 1, pp. 19–36, 2020.
V.V. Romanuke, “Minimal total weighted tardiness in tight-tardy single machine preemptive idling-free scheduling”, Appl. Comp. Syst., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 150–160, 2019. doi: 10.2478/acss-2019-0019
Copyright (c) 2020 The Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under CC BY 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work