[rules-users] Activation Firing slow on many events with timer attribute in rule (Drools Fusion)

[Philipp Herzig]

Thanks again,

yes I call fireAllRules() after insertion.

My understanding is that the join on mrid reduces the search space
(actually 2000) (actually canceled du to not) and the remainder can be
processed as leftover from the outer join.

Anyhow, when I remove the "not join" clause the behavior is exactly the same.

(1)  8000 create events are inserted and objects are asserted and
activations created!
(2) after 20s the activations are actually fired, but with a
noticeable delay (30min)

Now, when I simply remove the timer, all 8000 activations are fired
super fast (5s !!!)

Or am I overlooking sth?

Thanks for your patience,

Philipp


2012/1/30 Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun at gmail.com>:
>
>
> On 30 January 2012 17:18, Philipp Herzig <pherzig at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Wolfgang for your reply.
>>
>> doSomething simply persists something with JPA, no events are
>> retracted or updated. The behavior does also not change when there is
>> a simple println in the then clause.
>>
> OK.
>
>
>>
>> I thought events are automatically retracted once no rule applied
>> anymore.  The EventObject class with the map is used only for
>> abstraction within the architecture (actually a property pattern). No
>> intention to speed up something.
>
>
> There's no information in the (only) rule that would permit an automatic
> retraction.
> Mostly this is possible when temporal operators are used.
>
> Searching for EventObject/create without matching EventObject/delete is
> causing a lot of work, since each insertion requires an exhaustive linear
> search for the absence of a delete or the presence of a create.
>
> What do you call after the bunch insert? fireAllRules() ?
>
> -W
>
>
>> As I said, the activation firing works fine when no timer is present
>> and, of course, deletes are already inserted before the creates,
>> otherwise the rule won't fire.
>>
>>
>> Do you know how the Scheduler works? According to the observed
>> behavior I would guess that there is a background job invoked every
>> 100ms checking if there are timer delayed activations which has to be
>> fired.
>> If this is the case, I wonder why only some activations are fired and
>> not all. Due to the upper time bound?
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>> Philipp
>>
>>
>> 2012/1/30 Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun at gmail.com>:
>> > Does the doSomething() update or retract any EventObject facts and
>> > notify
>> > the Drools engine accordingly?
>> >
>> > (So far: Neither using the same class for the "create" and the "delete"
>> > events nor
>> > using a map (i.e., "data") for all properties is helping w.r.t. speed.)
>> >
>> > -W
>> >
>> >
>> > On 30 January 2012 15:07, Philipp Herzig <pherzig at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sure, here it is. Sorry for any inconvienience!
>> >>
>> >> rule "new_intent"
>> >> timer (20s)
>> >> when
>> >>      $evt : EventObject(data['type']=='create') from entry-point
>> >> eventstream
>> >>      not ( EventObject(data['type']=='delete',
>> >> data['mrid']==$evt.data['mrid'], data['userid']==$evt.data['userid'])
>> >> from entry-point eventstream)
>> >> then
>> >>  SomeAPI.getInstance().doSomething();
>> >> end
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thank you,
>> >>
>> >> Philipp
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2012/1/30 Michael Anstis <michael.anstis at gmail.com>
>> >> >
>> >> > It's going to help (probably) if you include the definition of your
>> >> > rule
>> >> > (or rules).
>> >> >
>> >> > 2012/1/30 Philipp Herzig <pherzig at googlemail.com>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dear Community,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Drools is pretty fast regarding all my use cases. However, today I
>> >> >> have
>> >> >> found a problem where I cannot find any solution. Hopefully someone
>> >> >> of you
>> >> >> can help.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1. I have a rule with a @timer(10s) attribute (should be 24h later
>> >> >> on
>> >> >> but doesn't matter). This rule is activated when a "create" event
>> >> >> occurs and
>> >> >> invalidated once a "delete" event occurs within the timeframe of
>> >> >> @timer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2. I have approx. 9000 "create" events which are bulk loaded into
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> working memory and creating activations for the rule above.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 3. I have approx. 2000 "delete" events which are bulk loaded into my
>> >> >> entry-point cancelling the respective activations from step (2)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 4. After the timer expired, the first activation is fired correctly.
>> >> >> However, all other activations are fired with some noticeable delay
>> >> >> (actually it needs 20-30minutes until all activations are fired).
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Do you have an idea what the problem with the timer might be?
>> >> >> Unfortunately, I have neither an idea how the scheduler in the
>> >> >> background
>> >> >> works nor which class I should start looking at.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> BTW: For testing purpose I switched step (2) & (3), that is,
>> >> >> "delete"
>> >> >> events are inserted before the "create" events and removed the timer
>> >> >> attribute which is obviously the same logic. It performs lightning
>> >> >> fast in
>> >> >> this case... (all remaining activations are fired within 5
>> >> >> seconds). However, insertinging my "delete" events before the
>> >> >> "create"
>> >> >> events is ok for testing but not feasible in practice.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It would be great if some of you has an idea or point to start
>> >> >> within
>> >> >> the code.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks in advance,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Philipp
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> rules-users mailing list
>> >> >> 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
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> --------------------------------------------
>> >> Philipp Herzig, M.Sc.
>> >>
>> >> Mail: pherzig at googlemail.com
>> >> Cell: 0178 - 6156244
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> rules-users mailing list
>> >> 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------
>> Philipp Herzig, M.Sc.
>>
>> Mail: pherzig at googlemail.com
>> Cell: 0178 - 6156244
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> 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
>



-- 
--------------------------------------------
Philipp Herzig, M.Sc.

Mail: pherzig at googlemail.com
Cell: 0178 - 6156244