Re: [rules-dev] Lazily Enabled Truth Maintenace (Project Propsoal)

On 20/09/2010 21:58, Leonardo Gomes wrote: Ok, it took me much longer that I had thought, but I think it's working now.. all tests passing except for ReteooWorkingMemoryTest that does: FactHandle fd = workingMemory.insert( string ); > > assertEquals( 1, > tms.getAssertMap().size() ); > Which is a good sign, since tms is now empty as long as you haven't done any logical insert :) I implemented just the first part of your suggestion, with a boolean. I will try to implement the solution with the counter later this week and maybe do some adjustments before submitting a patch. Do you have any suggestion in terms of unit tests that you would like to see or just the apparent lack of regressions is enough? Well, I can also think of some tests by taking ReteooWorkingMemoryTest as an example, in case you don't have anything particular in mind. When you do some insertions cast to get some of the internal data structures and check the equality map is null, maybe check the OT confs are false, do a logical insertion check it can turn on for specific OTNs and not all and that it correctly adds all objects for the OTN. This will be important for the next stage of the work. Mark Cheers, Leo. On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt;wrote: > On 20/09/2010 15:53, Leonardo Gomes wrote: > > I think I wasn't quite clear in my last email, so let me try to > reformulate it: > > I also gave it a try to try to do what you suggested here ( > http://blog.athico.com/2010/09/lazily-enabled-truth-maintenace.html), > Mark, and couldn't make it work due to the following situation: > > 1) Current code seems to rely on the equality map to know that a logical > insert (insertLogical) for an object that has already been regularly > inserted (insert) should be ignored; > > You would need to lazily maintain an equality map. When the first logical > insertion is done we will have to first populate that map from the Object > Type Node set of FactHandles. > In the "insert" one of the first lines is: > ObjectTypeConf typeConf = this.typeConfReg.getObjectTypeConf( > this.entryPoint, > > object ); > > So we get the ObjectTypeConf before we do anything with the object itself, > and we can check if TMS is being maintained for that Object Type. > > > 2) If I apply the modifications that you suggested, from what I > understood, things would start to be put in the equality map only when a > logical insert is issued; > > *Problem*: How would I handle the situation described in item 1, if I > don't have anything in the equality map at the moment a logical insert comes > in and I have to "lazily activate" TMS? > > final Rete source = this.ruleBase.getRete(); > ClassObjectType cot = new ClassObjectType( MyClass.class ); > Map<ObjectType, ObjectTypeNode> map = source.getObjectTypeNodes( > EntryPoint.DEFAULT ); > ObjectTypeNode node = map.get( cot ); > final ObjectHashSet memory = (ObjectHashSet) workingMemory.getNodeMemory( > node ); > > That "memory" is the set of currently asserted objects for that OTN. You > can now iterate that and populate the equality hash map. This is a one off > as the flag will be set on the ObjectTypeConf from then on and all objects > will be added to the equality map at the point of insertion. > > Does that help? All the information is there, you should have to know how > to retrieve it :) We don't currently maintain TMS for anything other than > the default entry point. Although I think that was a mistake and we will > probably move all entrypoints to work with same, but for now you can ignore > that and just focus on the default. > > Btw this should not be confused with "equality" mode where the equality > map has to be maintained by default from the start. Some would argue that a > rule engine should only under work and understand on the bases of equality > and thus all users must implement hashcode and equals correctly... > > > -- > > Moreover, I'm willing to attempt to implement the left and right > un-linking and tried to start with this easier task to start to get familiar > with drools-core. I already read the article you linked and your article. > Would you have any document with an overview of the way drools implements > rete? > > not really no, Rete has already well documented in a number of papers. > The best thing to do is get onto irc and talk directly to edson and I and we > can walk you through classes. > http://www.jboss.org/drools/irc.html > > Mark > > > Thanks in advance! > > Cheers, > Leo. > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 3:49 AM, Leonardo Gomes < > leonardo.f.gomes(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> if you look at the AbstractWorkingMemory insert method you'll see one >>> argument is whether it's a logical insertion or not. You'll also see it >>> check the global maintainTMS configuration and also retrieve the >>> ObjectTypeConf. So between those things someone should be able to get it >>> working. >>> >> >> Today, it enters a block where it operates on the equality map and also >> creates a default handle based on that TMS global option and *regardless* of >> whether it's a logical insert. >> >> If I'm *not* putting things in the equality map for regular inserts, when >> a logical insert comes in, but there were already stated inserts, how will I >> know that? I would create a new handle for the logical insert and do the >> tms.addLogicalDependency(...), even tough there were regular inserts before >> and this seems to be a wrong behaviour. >> >> Apparently, today, you can disable TMS and still use logical inserts in >> your drl, what, I believe, will lead to inconsistent behaviour, but you're >> at your own risk. >> >> Ideas? I feel that I missed something :) >> >> Cheers, >> Leo. >> >> P.S.: I reached the conclusions above based on the fact that >> LogicalAssertionTest started failing after I did the changes you suggested. >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt;wrote: >> >>> On 15/09/2010 14:35, Michael Anstis wrote: >>> >>> Is this in drools-core; or drools-compiler? >>> >>> Whilst not undertaking to do the work; have a purpose to nose through >>> the code makes understanding easier. >>> >>> It's all in DroolsCore. >>> >>> It's a 5 minute hack for me and then 15 minute unit writing test. But I >>> thought I'd write it up in a hope to bring someone else into the fold, we >>> need more help writting the core engine someone else out there must want to >>> work on current edge engine design :) >>> >>> if you look at the AbstractWorkingMemory insert method you'll see one >>> argument is whether it's a logical insertion or not. You'll also see it >>> check the global maintainTMS configuration and also retrieve the >>> ObjectTypeConf. So between those things someone should be able to get it >>> working. >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> >>> On 14 September 2010 16:47, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> Here is another project proposal, this time simpler. I think this one >>>> has Wolfgang's name on it ;) >>>> >>>> http://blog.athico.com/2010/09/lazily-enabled-truth-maintenace.html >>>> >>>> Three weeks ago I posted the project idea for "Left and Right >>>> Unlinking"<http://blog.athico.com/2010/08/left-and-right-unlinkin...;. >>>> So far there are no takers, so if you are interested let me know :) >>>> >>>> In the meantime I tried to think of a simpler enhancement that we would >>>> like to see done. >>>> >>>> At the moment Drools has a user setting "MaintainTMSOption" which can >>>> be true or false. It's a small optimisation that when turned off avoids >>>> using the equality hashmap that is maintained for all inserted objects. >>>> >>>> It would be a much better idea to remove this configuration setting, >>>> thus simplifying things for end users and have TMS lazily enabled on demand. >>>> >>>> For each object type there is an "ObjectTypeConf" configuration object >>>> that is retrieved every time a working memory action, such as insert, is >>>> executed. The enabledTMS boolean should be moved there, so there is one per >>>> object type, by default it is false. >>>> >>>> When a working memory action occurs, like insert, it retrieved the >>>> ObjectTypeConf and checks the maintainTms boolean there, instead of the >>>> current engine scoped configuration. When a logical insertion occurs and the >>>> ObjectTypeConf is retrieved if maintainTms is false it sets the value to >>>> true and then iterates the associated ObjectTypeNode memory lazily adding >>>> all the objects to the TMS equality map. From then on for that ObjectType >>>> all inserted objects are added to that equality map. >>>> >>>> With this you now have the advantage of TMS being laziy enabled, so the >>>> minor hashmap operation is no longer used and likewise a small memory saving >>>> from not populating the map. There is a further advantage that this is now >>>> fine grained and when enabled only impacts for that specific object type. >>>> >>>> A further enhancement could use a int counter, instead of a boolean. >>>> Each logical insertion for that object type increases the counter, each >>>> retraction decreases the counter; even if automatically retracted if the >>>> truth is broken for that logical assertion. When the counter reaches zero, >>>> TMS for that OTN can be disabled. We do not however remove the objects from >>>> the equality map, as this would cause "churn" if TMS is continuously enabled >>>> and disabled. Instead when TMS is disabled record the current fact counter >>>> id. Then if TMS is disabled on a retraction but there is a counter id, we >>>> can check that counter id to see if the fact is prior to TMS being disabled >>>> and thus would need to be retracted from the equality map. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rules-dev mailing list >>>> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rules-dev mailing listrules-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rules-dev mailing list >>> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev