[rules-users] Add/remove objects from working memory are very CPU intensive

[Mark Proctor]

I'm just finalising the last bit, so any day now. with any luck over the 
weekend or monday.

Mark
Einat Idan wrote:
> Michael,
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> When is the next milestone expected?
>
> On 4/12/07, *Michael Neale* <michael.neale at gmail.com 
> <mailto:michael.neale at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     definately upgrade to latest 3.0.x version (3.0.6).
>
>     Also, those methods are were most of the work happens, its a
>     common misconception that all the work happens lazily when you
>     call "fire all rules" but that is not the case, as you assert each
>     object, it propagates through the RETE network, so that is normal
>     to see the time spent there for lots of data.
>
>     you can also try the trunk version if you like, its certainly got
>     some improvements, but the next milestone (if you can wait) will
>     be more worth your time.
>
>     Michael.
>
>     On 4/12/07, *Einat Idan* <idan.einat at gmail.com
>     <mailto:idan.einat at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hi,
>
>         I encountered a serious performance problem using Jboss Rules
>         3.0.1. The process was executed on a pretty strong machine - a
>         DL350 4 cpu RedHat machine. The process was using about 100%
>         CPU and I used a profiler to see what's going on:
>
>         My application adds/removes objects to/from the working memory
>         of a stateful rule session quite intensively (2000-3000 per
>         sec), though the intensive actions were related to a single
>         rule session and only a few extra rule sessions existed
>         simultaneously. It turned out that about 7-10% of CPU was
>         consumed per a single add/remove operation. More specifically,
>         ReteooWorkingMemory.doRetract() and
>         ReteooWorkingMemory.doAssertObject() were the major consumers.
>         I would expect a basic operation like this to be significantly
>         less CPU intensive.
>
>         Would you please provide more information, is my benchmark too
>         ambitious? Do you recommend an upgrade to version 3.0.6? 3.1?
>         If so, please elaborate what were the performance improvements.
>
>         Best regards,
>         Einat Idan
>
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         rules-users mailing list
>         rules-users at lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
>         https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rules-users mailing list
>     rules-users at lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
>     https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070412/a706a02f/attachment.html