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

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