Re: [rules-users] [Drools Planner] Proof-of-Concept Stock-planning System

32 hours, that is very long, especially if you're talking about feasibility. Feasibility much be attained within seconds or maybe 2 minutes. So either your problem is very, very constrained (unlikely) or there is much room for optimization. Run the Benchmarker and enable the statistic BEST_SOLUTION_CHANGED. Verify that you have a good graph, and not a bad graph. See this issue to see the difference: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3451 Op 06-04-12 13:33, drools(a)orbit-x.de schreef: > Thank you, Geoffrey! > This is the answer I was hoping for and it confirms my > understanding of this problem. > Indeed it looks like it will be a standard implementation (since it > is (A) and (C)). > The reason I was willing to ask the community is that current > (non-optimizied prototype solution) takes approx. 32 hours to > complete. But I am pretty sure that optimized move factory, rule > definitions and engine configuration will move the completion time > down to expected 6 hours. > -----Original-Nachricht----- >> Von: "Geoffrey De Smet&quot;&lt;ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com&gt; >> An: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >> Datum: 05-04-2012 11:34 >> Betreff: Re: [rules-users] [Drools Planner] Proof-of-Concept >> Stock-planning System >> >> Op 03-04-12 23:10, Reinis schreef: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I want to ask you, guys, if you could guess if it is possible or >>> probable to build such a System with Drools Planner: >>> >>> The system shall plan the best time where the transport unit (TU) >>> has to >>> be input into stock system to reach set delivery deadlines, >>> utilization >>> of resources and load balancing of bottle necks (all expressed as >>> rules). >>> >>> Most of things (resource capacity, route within the stock system, >>> etc.) >>> are given and constant facts. Actually there is only one planning >>> variable - time interval of a transport unit characterizing retention >>> period within a given Resource. Like this: >>> >>> TU#1 is in Resource #A from 11:00 till 11:30<- the optimal interval >>> has >>> to be planned >> Is the value range something like this: >> (A) >> - 10:00 till 10:30 >> - 10:30 till 11:00 >> - 11:00 till 11:30 >> - 11:30 till 12:00 >> Or like this? >> (B) >> - 11:00 till 11:15 >> - 11:01 till 11:16 >> - 11:02 till 11:17 >> - 11:03 till 11:18 >> ... >> From reading further, I presume (A). >> >>> TU#1 is in Resource #B from 11:45 till 12:00<- the optimal interval >>> has >>> to be planned >>> >>> TU#1 is in Resource #C from 12:30 till 13:00<- the optimal interval >>> has >>> to be planned >>> >>> I have following problem size and constraints: >>> - TUs per day: 160'000 >>> - Amount of resources a TU travel through: 3 >> Do the TU need to go through it's 3 resources in a specific order? >> (C) No >> (D) Yes >> I presume it can not go through 2 resources at the same time. >>> - Average smallest time interval: 15 Min >>> - Planning period: 09:00 - 16:00 = 8 hours = 32 intervals >>> - Initial planning window: 4-6 hours >>> - continuous planning multiple batch execution time during the day >>> after >>> addition and/or retraction of number of TUs: 20 minutes >> (E) This is repeated planning (see documentation manual if you haven't >> already). >>> So the problem size would be(?): >>> (TUs * resources) ^ intervals = (160'000 * 3) ^ 32 = 6.305500958×10¹⁸¹ >> That's not a big search space. In some examples I 've seen 10^6800. >> Of course, the search space isn't the only metric to take into account >> (but I haven't found a good way to measure the other metrics, >> such as how-constrained-is-the-problem, how-big-is-the-snowball-effect, >> ...). >>> I know there is no one answer to this question. I would like only >>> to get >>> your feeling on this problem. Would you take on solving this sort of >>> problem with drools planner? >> Definitely :) >> If it's (A) and (C), it should be an easy, standard implementation. >> If it's (B) and (D), then it becomes interesting :) >> >> The only part I expect some rough edges is (E). >> I suspect you'll be asking for build-in support for "planning entity >> locking" to do your continuous planning easily. >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3359 >> It's a PITA to do that yourself for now. >>> thanks and br >>> Reinis >> -- >> With kind regards, >> Geoffrey De Smet > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users