[rules-dev] Constraint efficiency: (was: "New in 5.2.0" - What works, what doesn't?)

[Mark Proctor]

On 09/05/2011 17:57, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
> On 9 May 2011 15:56, Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org 
> <mailto:mproctor at codehaus.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 09/05/2011 12:40, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
>>
>>     But the following does not permit indexing:
>>     <any RHS expression from above> == <fieldname>
>     I don't understand this question as there is no join process in
>     the RHS, and thus no possible indexing.
>
>
> I thought that a very simple transformation could fold this back into
> <fieldname> == <any RHS expression from above>
>
> If the "indexable" forms can be detected by checking the 1st operand 
> and the operator, surely the same is possible for testing the 2nd 
> operand, followed by swapping operands.
>
> Example:
>    Person( name == "Fred" )
> same as
>    Person( "Fred" == name )
>
> But I don't think that this is an important feature - just wanted to 
> make sure what is, and what is not carried over from legacy.
Sorry I got confused. When you said RHS, I thought you meant the 
consequence. In theory yes it should be indexable, but not at the 
moment. While we have improved the intelligence of the parser, we have 
not yet done so for the indexing - so indexing is "as 5.1" for now.
>
> Thanks
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-dev/attachments/20110509/4d1634f4/attachment.html