[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-315?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin...
]
Geoffrey De Smet updated DROOLS-315:
------------------------------------
Description:
*Using a sum(Number) accumulate of these 2 numbers: new BigDecimal("0.01") and
new BigDecimal("0.09") give an incorrect result of 0.09999999999999999.
Support sumBigDecimal(BigDecimal) or better yet sum(BigDecimal).*
Old description:
TTP nl10 solver has about a 3% performance increase when switching from sumDouble to
sumLong (and possibly a bit more when switching to sumInteger)
There are 2 ways I see to implement this:
1) Force the user to explicitly declare he wants to use an integer based sum and add a
sumInteger.
This is not so user-friendly. This is what I 've done in the patch.
2) Support overloading of accumulate functions based on the function arguments.
AFAIK drl is strongly typed (at least with the java dialect), so it should be
theoretically possible for the drl parser to see
sum($myInteger)
and bind it to SumIntegerAccumulateFunction,
while binding
sum($myInteger.doubleValue())
to SumDoubleAccumulateFunction.
And added advantage is that the drl compiler will also mark some bugs as compiler errors.
For example
sum($myString)
was:
Using a sum(Number) accumulate of these 2 numbers: new BigDecimal("0.01") and
new BigDecimal("0.09") give an incorrect result of 0.09999999999999999.
Support sumBigDecimal(BigDecimal) or better yet sum(BigDecimal).
Old description:
TTP nl10 solver has about a 3% performance increase when switching from sumDouble to
sumLong (and possibly a bit more when switching to sumInteger)
There are 2 ways I see to implement this:
1) Force the user to explicitly declare he wants to use an integer based sum and add a
sumInteger.
This is not so user-friendly. This is what I 've done in the patch.
2) Support overloading of accumulate functions based on the function arguments.
AFAIK drl is strongly typed (at least with the java dialect), so it should be
theoretically possible for the drl parser to see
sum($myInteger)
and bind it to SumIntegerAccumulateFunction,
while binding
sum($myInteger.doubleValue())
to SumDoubleAccumulateFunction.
And added advantage is that the drl compiler will also mark some bugs as compiler errors.
For example
sum($myString)
Support overloading of accumulate functions: Add int (or long) based
sum's, int based avarage's, etc
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: DROOLS-315
URL:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-315
Project: Drools
Issue Type: Feature Request
Reporter: Geoffrey De Smet
Assignee: Edson Tirelli
Priority: Critical
Attachments: JBRULES-1075.patch
*Using a sum(Number) accumulate of these 2 numbers: new BigDecimal("0.01") and
new BigDecimal("0.09") give an incorrect result of 0.09999999999999999.
Support sumBigDecimal(BigDecimal) or better yet sum(BigDecimal).*
Old description:
TTP nl10 solver has about a 3% performance increase when switching from sumDouble to
sumLong (and possibly a bit more when switching to sumInteger)
There are 2 ways I see to implement this:
1) Force the user to explicitly declare he wants to use an integer based sum and add a
sumInteger.
This is not so user-friendly. This is what I 've done in the patch.
2) Support overloading of accumulate functions based on the function arguments.
AFAIK drl is strongly typed (at least with the java dialect), so it should be
theoretically possible for the drl parser to see
sum($myInteger)
and bind it to SumIntegerAccumulateFunction,
while binding
sum($myInteger.doubleValue())
to SumDoubleAccumulateFunction.
And added advantage is that the drl compiler will also mark some bugs as compiler errors.
For example
sum($myString)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.11#6341)