<br> Yuri,<br><br> Right now, the only way is to work with different rule bases and working memories. Even using agenda-groups or rule-flow, rules are still being eagerly evaluated, as this is how standard Rete works.
<br> The problem of creating and canceling too many activations is a known problem and the only way around it right now is sequential mode, but sequential mode has some restrictions on what you can do. For instance, you must work with a stateless working memory and can not modify/retract facts in your rules to work with sequential mode, but it will give you big performance boosts.
<br><br> We are evaluating the possibility of creating physical network partitions for next version, but that will require some R&D yet.<br><br> []s<br> Edson<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">2007/8/14, Yuri <
<a href="mailto:ydewit@gmail.com">ydewit@gmail.com</a>>:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Dr. Gernot Starke <gs <at>
<a href="http://gernotstarke.de">gernotstarke.de</a>> writes:<br>> can you detail your problem a little?<br><br>I basically need to find perfect matches between two different sets of objects.<br>If perfect matches are not found, I then create bulks of objects that are then
<br>used in combination with the individual ones to find bulk matches. If no matches<br>are found I need then to categorize the breaks (around 10 different<br>categorizations) and report them.<br><br>The matching criteria between two object is specific enough to be fast. Once I
<br>get into break, which basically is removing some criteria components, the<br>possible combinations increase exponentially. Bulking just compounds the problem<br>by adding more matchable/breakable facts into memory.<br>
<br>My bulking logic (I didnt have collect when I started with 3.0) starts a bulk<br>looking for two diff objects with the same bulkling criteria (this is my first<br>potential cross product since drools would produce C!/N!(C-N)! combinations).
<br>Then once the bulk for a given criteria is create I have a second rule that<br>expands or contracts the bulks as new facts are asserted causing many different<br>side effects.<br><br>What I am basically seeing is that asserting a fact that would for instance be a
<br>perfect match, causes many of the bulking and breaking rule activations to be<br>created and then cancelled. Considering that I am talking about tens or hundreds<br>of thousands of facts I thought that if I could stage the activation creations I
<br>would increase processing speed.<br><br>With 15K objects on each side I have been seeing something like 1 assertion per<br>second.<br><br>I am aware that this could be cross product somewhere but I have already revised
<br>the rules many many times so now I am looking for other alternatives.<br><br>I am now trying to understand looking I basically need to find perfect matches<br>between two different sets of objects. If perfect matches are not found, I then
<br>create bulks of objects that are then used in combination with the individual<br>one to find bulk matches. If no matches are found I need then to categorize the<br>breaks (around 10 different categorizations) and report them.
<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>rules-users mailing list<br><a href="mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org">rules-users@lists.jboss.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users">
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br> Edson Tirelli<br> Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer<br> Office: +55 11 3529-6000<br> Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
<br> JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ <a href="http://www.jboss.com">www.jboss.com</a>