[rules-users] Upgrade to Drools 5 - loss of performance

[Edson Tirelli]

     Indeed, at this point we are not aware of any performance problems. Of
course all the features we added may add a bit of overhead, but in our tests
that was completely offset by the improvements we made. The elimination of
shadow facts by itself is a huge boost for use cases with lots of facts or
facts with many fields. (just to mention one case)

     Keep us posted and if you submit more info, please include the actual
versions of the jars you are using of Drools and MVEL.

     Edson



2009/5/28 Scott Reed <sreed at avacoda.com>

>  Edson,
>   I figured I must have missed some docs explaining changes required for
> the upgrade. If I suspected this was an inherent problem with the 5.0
> release I'd have supplied lots of info. I am inferring from the response
> that there are no known issues with 5.0 upgrade so I'll do my own
> investigation for a while. Let's hope I find something unrelated to the
> Drools.
>   Scott
>
>
> Edson Tirelli [5/28/2009 12:52 PM] wrote:
>
>
>    Scott,
>
>    As others already mentioned, your e-mail does not help much. We need to
> know what is "unacceptably slow". How much slower is that? 10%, 100%, 1000%?
> Also, we need a description of your use case: what kind of rules do you use,
> how many rules, how many facts, etc. Finally, we need a way to reproduce the
> problem.
>
>    So, if you can provide more info, we might be able to help.
>
>     []s
>     Edson
>
> 2009/5/28 Scott Reed <sreed at avacoda.com>
>
>> I just upgraded our app from Drools 4 to 5 libraries. We just use the
>> rules engine with DRL. The performance of the engine on our rulebase is
>> unacceptably slow.  I assume there is something we need to do to our rules
>> or the way we are configuring the engine to fix this. I don't see anything
>> in the release notes about backwards compatibility issues. I would very much
>> appreciate it if someone would direct me to any documentation that explains
>> what needs to be done so our 4.0 rules perform at least as well as they did
>> before the upgrade?
>> Thanks,
>>  Scott
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>
>
>
> --
>  Edson Tirelli
>  JBoss Drools Core Development
>  JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing listrules-users at lists.jboss.orghttps://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
>
>


-- 
 Edson Tirelli
 JBoss Drools Core Development
 JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20090528/a6fdc854/attachment.html