[rules-users] Bulk-Retract speed conundrum

[djb]

Hi Edson, Wolfgang,

Sorry, I don't think my previous mail posted, sorry if it did.

Thanks for your suggestions.  They were very helpful, and I managed to drop
it down to 130ms, and I can see that if I get Wolfgang's suggestion right,
it will jump down to under 80!  

The changes I made, which decreased run time by 200ms were:

-The superfluous last condition (with the collect(...)) is only relevant
when the variable is non-zero, so I've changed the values in the rule
template from 0 to blank, and used the commenting trick to blank out those
lines when the condition is irrelevant.

-Putting the check for type before the check for code.

-The inline eval did not improve speed, in fact, it decreased the speed
slightly.

-disposing the session instead of retracting

... and now I am looking for a way to conditionally show the =>/=< vs. ==
when it is appropriate.  It does not appear that there is an easy way to do
this, with rule templates.  


regards,
Daniel
-- 
View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Bulk-Retract-speed-conundrum-tp779188p783188.html
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.