6:37 a.m.
Hi,
Iam trying to use Drools for implementing some of the business logic
in hospital billing senario.My senario is as given.Iam implementing the
concept of a packge. A package is a set of services or items are put
together based on some contions. Only the packge is to be charged not the
individal services or items in the package.
Eg: A Health Package is defined with name ExecutiveHealthCheckUp, which
have a condition say,quntity limit 2 for Laboratory tests.So if more than 2
test is ordered for a patient the 3rd ordered test should not be part of
package.
A ordered service is considered to be part of a package if the
packageChargeRecordId property of the service
Using Drools iam trying to find out each of the ordered services(
$orderedComponent) for the patient to be part of package or not. Each of
the ordered service have quntity field.So i need to sum the quntity field of
same services ordered multiple times which is already part of the same
package and compare it with the quntity limit defined in the package
definition.
If a service is part of package iam setting packageChargeRecordId property
of ordered service to the packageId.
For implementing the same i have 2 set of collecton.
1st collection has got list of ordered services for the
patient.($objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList() )
2nd collection list of condition for the services to be part of package.
($packageDefinition.getPackageComponentList())
rule "Package Rate_21"
salience 65515
when
/*package defanition object */
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
/*Gets the list of services ordered */
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$qty:componentQty)
from $objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList() and
/*trying to get the accumulated quantity for the services
which are already part of package */
$accumulatedQty:Number()
from accumulate (
$accQtyComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,componentKey==$id1,
$AccQty : componentQty) from
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($AccQty ) )
and
/*Comparing withe packakage definition rule */
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,(quantityLmt
=($qty+$accumulatedQty.intValue()))) from
$packageDefinition.getPackageComponentList()
then
/*setting the packagechargerecordId for the ordered services
which satisfies above conditions */
$orderedComponent.setPackageChargeRecordId($packageId);
/*The changes have happened in facts so updating in the working
memory so the rule get executed once again*/
modify ($objOrderedComponents){};
end
The problem i am facing here is of performance. This way of
implementation is taking much time compared to that of java code.If iam
not using accumulate function and iam executing the rules for each item
seperatly instead of passing entire collection,it is working much better.
Can anbody suggest a better way to implement it using drools.
Regards
Sanal.P
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Performace-Issues-drools-tp3902270p3902...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
6:53 a.m.
Some corrections in my previous mail
1)A ordered service is considered to be part of a package
if the packageChargeRecordId property of the ordered service is assingned
the package Id.
2)Using Drools i need to find out each of the ordered services(
$orderedComponent) for the patient is part of package or not. For doing
that i proceeding in the below way
i)Each of the ordered service have quntity field.So i need to sum the
quntity field of same services ordered multiple times which is already part
of the package.
ii)compare it with the quntity limit defined in the package definition.
3)If a service is part of package iam setting packageChargeRecordId property
of ordered service to the packageId.
Regards
Sanal.p
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Performace-Issues-drools-tp3902270p3902...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
7:18 a.m.
Hi,
this is better, but I'm missing the fact to which
$objOrderedComponents
is bound.
However, you will have to use a somewhat different approach, one which
is based on the availability of OrderedComponent's and
PackageComponent's as individula facts. This is the way to avoid these
repeating accumulates. You'll still have to use accumulate for doing
the sums, but one sum will only be computed once.
-W
On 11/04/2012, sanal <sanal.p(a)icthealth.com> wrote:
Hi,
Iam trying to use Drools for implementing some of the business logic
in hospital billing senario.My senario is as given.Iam implementing the
concept of a packge. A package is a set of services or items are put
together based on some contions. Only the packge is to be charged not the
individal services or items in the package.
Eg: A Health Package is defined with name ExecutiveHealthCheckUp, which
have a condition say,quntity limit 2 for Laboratory tests.So if more than 2
test is ordered for a patient the 3rd ordered test should not be part of
package.
A ordered service is considered to be part of a package if the
packageChargeRecordId property of the service
Using Drools iam trying to find out each of the ordered services(
$orderedComponent) for the patient to be part of package or not. Each of
the ordered service have quntity field.So i need to sum the quntity field of
same services ordered multiple times which is already part of the same
package and compare it with the quntity limit defined in the package
definition.
If a service is part of package iam setting packageChargeRecordId property
of ordered service to the packageId.
For implementing the same i have 2 set of collecton.
1st collection has got list of ordered services for the
patient.($objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList() )
2nd collection list of condition for the services to be part of package.
($packageDefinition.getPackageComponentList())
rule "Package Rate_21"
salience 65515
when
/*package defanition object */
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
/*Gets the list of services ordered */
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$qty:componentQty)
from $objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList() and
/*trying to get the accumulated quantity for the services
which are already part of package */
$accumulatedQty:Number()
from accumulate (
$accQtyComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,componentKey==$id1,
$AccQty : componentQty) from
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($AccQty ) )
and
/*Comparing withe packakage definition rule */
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,(quantityLmt
>=($qty+$accumulatedQty.intValue()))) from
$packageDefinition.getPackageComponentList()
then
/*setting the packagechargerecordId for the ordered services
which satisfies above conditions */
$orderedComponent.setPackageChargeRecordId($packageId);
/*The changes have happened in facts so updating in the working
memory so the rule get executed once again*/
modify ($objOrderedComponents){};
end
The problem i am facing here is of performance. This way of
implementation is taking much time compared to that of java code.If iam
not using accumulate function and iam executing the rules for each item
seperatly instead of passing entire collection,it is working much better.
Can anbody suggest a better way to implement it using drools.
Regards
Sanal.P
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Performace-Issues-drools-tp3902270p3902...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
7:48 a.m.
Hi Wolfgang Laun,
$objOrderedComponents is bound to Order object which contails
the list of services ordered.
$objOrderedComponents:Order()
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList() provides the
list of OrderedComponent.
I will try with the approch you have suggested.
Regards
Sanal.P
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Performace-Issues-drools-tp3902270p3902...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
4:08 a.m.
Hi ,
I am trying to use drools where the rules are
defined in a tree format.
eg:Iam explaining it with a hospital senario. A healtcarepackage has got
set of criteria which is defined in a tree format.
QtyLimit
AmtLimit Excluded
-- ServiceGroup -
- -
----------------DrugGroup 10000
----------------ServiceGroup 15000
--------------------LabServices 2
-------------------------GlucoseTest
Y
---------------------RadiologyServices 20000
--------------------------XRayChest 5
Here each of the package criteria is a packagecomponent. and service which
are ordered for patient is a ServiceComponent.Using the above rules ideed to
check wether the service component can be part of the package or not?There
are few more critriea other than above
given(TariffClassType,Tariffclassvalue...etc)
I have included the Drl which iam using.I have added all the
PackageComponents and the serviceComponents to working memory as facts to
the working memory.Is there any better way for implementing the same?
package com.his.billing.domain
import com.his.clinical.domain.PackageDefinition;
import com.his.clinical.domain.PackageComponent;
import com.his.billing.domain.OrderedComponent;
import com.his.billing.domain.AccumulatedComponent;
#From row number: 11*/
rule "Package Details_11"
salience 8
when
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$qty:componentQty) and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true)
then
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
end
/*#From row number: 12*/
rule "Package Details_12"
salience 7
when
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isExcluded==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null &&
tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true)
then
$orderedComponent.setIsExluded(true);
end
/*
#From row number: 21*/
rule "Package Rate_13"
salience 6
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$accumulatedQty:Number()
from accumulate (
$accQtyComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId, $AccQty
: componentQty) from
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($AccQty ) ) and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,(quantityLmt == 0 ||
quantityLmt != null || quantityLmt
<($qty+$accumulatedQty.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)))
then
$orderedComponent.setIsQtyExceeded(true);
end
/*
#From row number: 21*/
rule "Package Rate_14"
salience 5
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$accumulatedAmount:Number()
from accumulate (
$accAmtComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,$accAmount:componentAmt)
from $objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($accAmount ) ) and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,( amountLmt == 0 ||
amountLmt == null || amountLmt
<($amount+$accumulatedAmount.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)))
then
$orderedComponent.setIsAmtExceeded(true);
end
/*#From row number: 22*/
rule "Package Details_15"
salience 4
when
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey)
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isPackageComponent==true,exemption==true,isActive==true)
then
$orderedComponent.setExemption(true);
end
/*#From row number: 21*/
rule "Package Rate_16"
salience 3
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$accumulatedAmount:Number()
from accumulate (
$accAmtComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,$accAmount:componentAmt)
from $objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($accAmount ) ) and
$accumulatedQty:Number()
from accumulate (
$accQtyComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId, $AccQty
: componentQty) from
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($AccQty ) ) and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isExcluded==false,(amountLmt
== 0 || amountLmt == null || amountLmt
=($amount+$accumulatedAmount.intValue())),( quantityLmt ==0 ||
quantityLmt
==null || quantityLmt
=($qty+$accumulatedQty.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId))) from
$packageDefinition.getPackageComponentList()
then
$orderedComponent.setIsComponentApplicable(true);
$orderedComponent.setPackageChargeRecordId($packageId);
modify ($objOrderedComponents){};
end
/*#From row number: 22*/
rule "Package Details_17"
salience 2
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,isPackageComponent==false,componentType=="1052374",haveReachedRootNode==false)
then
$orderedComponent.setGenericComponentKey();
modify ($objOrderedComponents){};
end
/*#From row number: 22*/
rule "Package Details_18"
salience 1
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,isPackageComponent==false,haveReachedRootNode==false)
then
$orderedComponent.setGroupComponentKey();
modify ($objOrderedComponents){};
end
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Performace-Issues-drools-tp3902270p3913...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
6:26 a.m.
Hi,
Still Iam facing some issues with the accumulte.Please see the below
senario.I am trying to explain with the below example.
Suppose Glucose is a OrderedComponent which is under Labgroup.
PackageComponent(Rule)
------------------------------
LABGroup (ComponentKey=100) qtyLimit(2)
OrderedComponent
-------------------------------
Order1 Glucose (ComponentKey=101) Ordered qty (1)
ParentKey(100), ParentKey(4)
Order2 Glucose (ComponentKey=101) Ordered qty (1)
ParentKey(100) ,ParentKey(4)
Order3 Glucose (ComponentKey=101) Ordered qty (1)
ParentKey(100), ParentKey(4)
Rule execution flow which i require.
1) I need to check any rule exist for Orderedcomponent.If exist Execute the
Rule.
In this case no rule exist for glucose.
2) If no rule is found for the Orderedcomponent.I need to Check if any rule
exist for its parent(group).
I am trying to achive this by changing the component key. The component
key is changed to that of
the parent and the rules are executed once again.This process is
contiuned until any rules exist for the group
or root parent is reached(tree format).
1st Issue
Here parent of glucose is Lab. And Lab has got rule.So the Parent rule
of lab should get executed.
In this senario only 2 glucose orders should go under package. 3rd one
should not go under package.
With my existing Drl all the 3 are going inside the package.How can i
correct this?
2nd Issue
While accumulating with lab group,all ordered items whose parent group is
lab should be summed up.
The salience is used in such a manner because i need to execute the rules
for the services first
and later the rules for its parents group.
Please find the modified drl as per your suggestion.
package com.his.billing.domain;
import com.his.clinical.domain.PackageDefinition;
import com.his.clinical.domain.PackageComponent;
import com.his.billing.domain.OrderedComponent;
import com.his.billing.domain.AccumulatedComponent;
/*#From row number: 12*/
rule "Check whether is orderedComponent is excluded"
salience 7
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isExcluded==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null &&
tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true)
then
$orderedComponent.setIsExluded(true);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
end
/*#From row number: 21*/
rule "Check whether is orderedComponent quantity limit exceeded"
salience 6
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$accumulatedQty:Number()
from accumulate (
$accQtyComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId, $AccQty
: componentQty) from
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($AccQty ) ) and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,(quantityLmt == 0 ||
quantityLmt != null || quantityLmt
<($qty+$accumulatedQty.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)))
then
$orderedComponent.setIsQtyExceeded(true);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
end
/*#From row number: 21*/
rule "Check whether is orderedComponent Amount limit exceeded"
salience 5
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$accumulatedAmount:Number()
from accumulate (
$accAmtComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,$accAmount:componentAmt)
from $objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($accAmount ) ) and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,( amountLmt == 0 ||
amountLmt == null || amountLmt
<($amount+$accumulatedAmount.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)))
then
$orderedComponent.setIsAmtExceeded(true);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
end
/*#From row number: 22*/
rule "Check whether is orderedComponent is exempted"
salience 4
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey)
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isPackageComponent==true,exemption==true,isActive==true)
then
$orderedComponent.setExemption(true);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
end
/*#From row number: 21*/
rule "Check whether orderedComponent satisfy all rules.Then assign package
id"
salience 3
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,packageChargeRecordId!=$packageId,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$accumulatedAmount:Number()
from accumulate (
$accAmtComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,$accAmount:componentAmt)
from $objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($accAmount ) ) and
$accumulatedQty:Number()
from accumulate (
$accQtyComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId, $AccQty
: componentQty) from
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($AccQty ) ) and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isExcluded==false,(amountLmt
== 0 || amountLmt == null || amountLmt
=($amount+$accumulatedAmount.intValue())),( quantityLmt ==0 ||
quantityLmt
==null || quantityLmt
=($qty+$accumulatedQty.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId))) from
$packageDefinition.getPackageComponentList()
then
$orderedComponent.setIsComponentApplicable(true);
$orderedComponent.setPackageChargeRecordId($packageId);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
modify($orderedComponent){};
modify($objOrderedComponents){};
end
/*#From row number: 22*/
rule "If no rule exist for orderedComponent Check whether orderedComponent
is a pharmacy item then assign its generic naame and then apply the rules"
salience 2
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,isPackageComponent==false,componentType=="1052374",haveReachedRootNode==false)
then
$orderedComponent.setGenericComponentKey();
modify($orderedComponent){};
modify($objOrderedComponents){};
end
/*#From row number: 22*/
rule "If no rule exist for orderedComponent Check whether rule exist for
its parent group"
salience 1
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,isPackageComponent==false,haveReachedRootNode==false)
then
$orderedComponent.setGroupComponentKey();
modify($orderedComponent){};
modify($objOrderedComponents){};
end
Regards
Sanal.P
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Performace-Issues-drools-tp3902270p3916...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
10:56 a.m.
This may no longer be the case, but my understanding is that when you use from to query
data from a member list of another object in working memory, that those members are not
indexed by Rete.
I think every time the rule evaluates, it has to iterate through the entire member list
(collection) to find the matching facts that are extracted for additional evaluation.
With that said, if you have one rule that extracts the facts, and inserts them into
working memory, they will be indexed and now many operations on the fact type will be
pre-computed at the time of insert, improving performance dramatically. I don't know
if this makes sense, but consider the following:
CONDITION:
$pt: Patient ( )
LabTest( ) from $pt.labTests
$numTests: Number ( ) from accumulate ( LabTest($type: type == "lab"),
count($type) )
Drools first collects all the Patient facts and for each Patient it extracts the
collections of tests. Now the collection of patients are already known by Rete, so this
has been pre-computed at time of fact insert.
Next, for each Patient fact, drools extracts the collection of LabTests performed. These
are not indexed by Rete to they are not actually in working memory. Each time this rule
is evaluated, the collection of LabTests must be generated.
Next the accumulate evaluates the LabTest facts to find those that have a getType() ==
"lab". Since the facts do not exist in working memory, accumulate iterates all
the LabTest fact and extracts just the ones where getType == "lab". If the rule
file 10 times, that's 10 iterations of the collection.
If you break this into two rules:
CONDITION:
$pt: Patient ( )
$test : LabTest( ) from $pt.labTests
CONSEQUENCE
Insert($test);
CONDITION:
$numTests: Number ( ) from accumulate ( LabTest($type: type == "lab"),
count($type) )
In this scenario, Drools only extracts the LabTest facts once, and inserts them in working
memory, so that when the 2nd rule is evaluated, it is already known which LabTest facts
are in memory that exist, and the iteration only happened once, at insert time, instead at
every rule evaluation.
My understanding may be obsolete, and inaccurate as it applies to Drools 5.4, but this is
the type of coding changes I have made in the past to improve performance. The key is
knowing how to control the insertion rule, so it does not insert duplicates, or refire
unexpectedly.
Care must be taken to ensure you are properly binding your facts when you do this
though... But the most speed benefit in drools comes from using the rete engine to avoid
multiple iterations of the same collection...
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of sanal
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 4:27 AM
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Performace Issues drools
Hi,
Still Iam facing some issues with the accumulte.Please see the below
senario.I am trying to explain with the below example.
Suppose Glucose is a OrderedComponent which is under Labgroup.
PackageComponent(Rule)
------------------------------
LABGroup (ComponentKey=100) qtyLimit(2)
OrderedComponent
-------------------------------
Order1 Glucose (ComponentKey=101) Ordered qty (1)
ParentKey(100), ParentKey(4)
Order2 Glucose (ComponentKey=101) Ordered qty (1)
ParentKey(100) ,ParentKey(4)
Order3 Glucose (ComponentKey=101) Ordered qty (1)
ParentKey(100), ParentKey(4)
Rule execution flow which i require.
1) I need to check any rule exist for Orderedcomponent.If exist Execute the
Rule.
In this case no rule exist for glucose.
2) If no rule is found for the Orderedcomponent.I need to Check if any rule
exist for its parent(group).
I am trying to achive this by changing the component key. The component
key is changed to that of
the parent and the rules are executed once again.This process is
contiuned until any rules exist for the group
or root parent is reached(tree format).
1st Issue
Here parent of glucose is Lab. And Lab has got rule.So the Parent rule
of lab should get executed.
In this senario only 2 glucose orders should go under package. 3rd one
should not go under package.
With my existing Drl all the 3 are going inside the package.How can i
correct this?
2nd Issue
While accumulating with lab group,all ordered items whose parent group is
lab should be summed up.
The salience is used in such a manner because i need to execute the rules
for the services first
and later the rules for its parents group.
Please find the modified drl as per your suggestion.
package com.his.billing.domain;
import com.his.clinical.domain.PackageDefinition;
import com.his.clinical.domain.PackageComponent;
import com.his.billing.domain.OrderedComponent;
import com.his.billing.domain.AccumulatedComponent;
/*#From row number: 12*/
rule "Check whether is orderedComponent is excluded"
salience 7
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isExcluded==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null &&
tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true)
then
$orderedComponent.setIsExluded(true);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
end
/*#From row number: 21*/
rule "Check whether is orderedComponent quantity limit exceeded"
salience 6
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$accumulatedQty:Number()
from accumulate (
$accQtyComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId, $AccQty
: componentQty) from
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($AccQty ) ) and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,(quantityLmt == 0 ||
quantityLmt != null || quantityLmt
<($qty+$accumulatedQty.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)))
then
$orderedComponent.setIsQtyExceeded(true);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
end
/*#From row number: 21*/
rule "Check whether is orderedComponent Amount limit exceeded"
salience 5
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$accumulatedAmount:Number()
from accumulate (
$accAmtComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,$accAmount:componentAmt)
from $objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($accAmount ) ) and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,( amountLmt == 0 ||
amountLmt == null || amountLmt
<($amount+$accumulatedAmount.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)))
then
$orderedComponent.setIsAmtExceeded(true);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
end
/*#From row number: 22*/
rule "Check whether is orderedComponent is exempted"
salience 4
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey)
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isPackageComponent==true,exemption==true,isActive==true)
then
$orderedComponent.setExemption(true);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
end
/*#From row number: 21*/
rule "Check whether orderedComponent satisfy all rules.Then assign package
id"
salience 3
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,packageChargeRecordId!=$packageId,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$accumulatedAmount:Number()
from accumulate (
$accAmtComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,$accAmount:componentAmt)
from $objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($accAmount ) ) and
$accumulatedQty:Number()
from accumulate (
$accQtyComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId, $AccQty
: componentQty) from
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($AccQty ) ) and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isExcluded==false,(amountLmt
== 0 || amountLmt == null || amountLmt
=($amount+$accumulatedAmount.intValue())),( quantityLmt ==0 ||
quantityLmt
==null || quantityLmt
=($qty+$accumulatedQty.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId))) from
$packageDefinition.getPackageComponentList()
then
$orderedComponent.setIsComponentApplicable(true);
$orderedComponent.setPackageChargeRecordId($packageId);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
modify($orderedComponent){};
modify($objOrderedComponents){};
end
/*#From row number: 22*/
rule "If no rule exist for orderedComponent Check whether orderedComponent
is a pharmacy item then assign its generic naame and then apply the rules"
salience 2
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,isPackageComponent==false,componentType=="1052374",haveReachedRootNode==false)
then
$orderedComponent.setGenericComponentKey();
modify($orderedComponent){};
modify($objOrderedComponents){};
end
/*#From row number: 22*/
rule "If no rule exist for orderedComponent Check whether rule exist for
its parent group"
salience 1
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,isPackageComponent==false,haveReachedRootNode==false)
then
$orderedComponent.setGroupComponentKey();
modify($orderedComponent){};
modify($objOrderedComponents){};
end
Regards
Sanal.P
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Performace-Issues-drools-tp3902270p3916...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
6:59 a.m.
I want implement this. How would you control the insertion rule in order to avoid having
it insert duplicates or re-fire?
Thanks
On Apr 19, 2012, at 10:56 AM, "Welsh, Armand" <AWelsh(a)statestreet.com>
wrote:
This may no longer be the case, but my understanding is that when you
use from to query data from a member list of another object in working memory, that those
members are not indexed by Rete.
I think every time the rule evaluates, it has to iterate through the entire member list
(collection) to find the matching facts that are extracted for additional evaluation.
With that said, if you have one rule that extracts the facts, and inserts them into
working memory, they will be indexed and now many operations on the fact type will be
pre-computed at the time of insert, improving performance dramatically. I don't know
if this makes sense, but consider the following:
CONDITION:
$pt: Patient ( )
LabTest( ) from $pt.labTests
$numTests: Number ( ) from accumulate ( LabTest($type: type == "lab"),
count($type) )
Drools first collects all the Patient facts and for each Patient it extracts the
collections of tests. Now the collection of patients are already known by Rete, so this
has been pre-computed at time of fact insert.
Next, for each Patient fact, drools extracts the collection of LabTests performed. These
are not indexed by Rete to they are not actually in working memory. Each time this rule
is evaluated, the collection of LabTests must be generated.
Next the accumulate evaluates the LabTest facts to find those that have a getType() ==
"lab". Since the facts do not exist in working memory, accumulate iterates all
the LabTest fact and extracts just the ones where getType == "lab". If the rule
file 10 times, that's 10 iterations of the collection.
If you break this into two rules:
CONDITION:
$pt: Patient ( )
$test : LabTest( ) from $pt.labTests
CONSEQUENCE
Insert($test);
CONDITION:
$numTests: Number ( ) from accumulate ( LabTest($type: type == "lab"),
count($type) )
In this scenario, Drools only extracts the LabTest facts once, and inserts them in
working memory, so that when the 2nd rule is evaluated, it is already known which LabTest
facts are in memory that exist, and the iteration only happened once, at insert time,
instead at every rule evaluation.
My understanding may be obsolete, and inaccurate as it applies to Drools 5.4, but this is
the type of coding changes I have made in the past to improve performance. The key is
knowing how to control the insertion rule, so it does not insert duplicates, or refire
unexpectedly.
Care must be taken to ensure you are properly binding your facts when you do this
though... But the most speed benefit in drools comes from using the rete engine to avoid
multiple iterations of the same collection...
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of sanal
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 4:27 AM
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Performace Issues drools
Hi,
Still Iam facing some issues with the accumulte.Please see the below
senario.I am trying to explain with the below example.
Suppose Glucose is a OrderedComponent which is under Labgroup.
PackageComponent(Rule)
------------------------------
LABGroup (ComponentKey=100) qtyLimit(2)
OrderedComponent
-------------------------------
Order1 Glucose (ComponentKey=101) Ordered qty (1)
ParentKey(100), ParentKey(4)
Order2 Glucose (ComponentKey=101) Ordered qty (1)
ParentKey(100) ,ParentKey(4)
Order3 Glucose (ComponentKey=101) Ordered qty (1)
ParentKey(100), ParentKey(4)
Rule execution flow which i require.
1) I need to check any rule exist for Orderedcomponent.If exist Execute the
Rule.
In this case no rule exist for glucose.
2) If no rule is found for the Orderedcomponent.I need to Check if any rule
exist for its parent(group).
I am trying to achive this by changing the component key. The component
key is changed to that of
the parent and the rules are executed once again.This process is
contiuned until any rules exist for the group
or root parent is reached(tree format).
1st Issue
Here parent of glucose is Lab. And Lab has got rule.So the Parent rule
of lab should get executed.
In this senario only 2 glucose orders should go under package. 3rd one
should not go under package.
With my existing Drl all the 3 are going inside the package.How can i
correct this?
2nd Issue
While accumulating with lab group,all ordered items whose parent group is
lab should be summed up.
The salience is used in such a manner because i need to execute the rules
for the services first
and later the rules for its parents group.
Please find the modified drl as per your suggestion.
package com.his.billing.domain;
import com.his.clinical.domain.PackageDefinition;
import com.his.clinical.domain.PackageComponent;
import com.his.billing.domain.OrderedComponent;
import com.his.billing.domain.AccumulatedComponent;
/*#From row number: 12*/
rule "Check whether is orderedComponent is excluded"
salience 7
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isExcluded==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null &&
tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true)
then
$orderedComponent.setIsExluded(true);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
end
/*#From row number: 21*/
rule "Check whether is orderedComponent quantity limit exceeded"
salience 6
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$accumulatedQty:Number()
from accumulate (
$accQtyComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId, $AccQty
: componentQty) from
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($AccQty ) ) and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,(quantityLmt == 0 ||
quantityLmt != null || quantityLmt
<($qty+$accumulatedQty.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)))
then
$orderedComponent.setIsQtyExceeded(true);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
end
/*#From row number: 21*/
rule "Check whether is orderedComponent Amount limit exceeded"
salience 5
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$accumulatedAmount:Number()
from accumulate (
$accAmtComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,$accAmount:componentAmt)
from $objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($accAmount ) ) and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,( amountLmt == 0 ||
amountLmt == null || amountLmt
<($amount+$accumulatedAmount.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)))
then
$orderedComponent.setIsAmtExceeded(true);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
end
/*#From row number: 22*/
rule "Check whether is orderedComponent is exempted"
salience 4
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey)
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isPackageComponent==true,exemption==true,isActive==true)
then
$orderedComponent.setExemption(true);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
end
/*#From row number: 21*/
rule "Check whether orderedComponent satisfy all rules.Then assign package
id"
salience 3
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,packageChargeRecordId!=$packageId,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$accumulatedAmount:Number()
from accumulate (
$accAmtComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,$accAmount:componentAmt)
from $objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($accAmount ) ) and
$accumulatedQty:Number()
from accumulate (
$accQtyComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId, $AccQty
: componentQty) from
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($AccQty ) ) and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isExcluded==false,(amountLmt
== 0 || amountLmt == null || amountLmt
> =($amount+$accumulatedAmount.intValue())),( quantityLmt ==0 || quantityLmt
==null || quantityLmt
>
=($qty+$accumulatedQty.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId))) from
$packageDefinition.getPackageComponentList()
then
$orderedComponent.setIsComponentApplicable(true);
$orderedComponent.setPackageChargeRecordId($packageId);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
modify($orderedComponent){};
modify($objOrderedComponents){};
end
/*#From row number: 22*/
rule "If no rule exist for orderedComponent Check whether orderedComponent
is a pharmacy item then assign its generic naame and then apply the rules"
salience 2
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,isPackageComponent==false,componentType=="1052374",haveReachedRootNode==false)
then
$orderedComponent.setGenericComponentKey();
modify($orderedComponent){};
modify($objOrderedComponents){};
end
/*#From row number: 22*/
rule "If no rule exist for orderedComponent Check whether rule exist for
its parent group"
salience 1
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,isPackageComponent==false,haveReachedRootNode==false)
then
$orderedComponent.setGroupComponentKey();
modify($orderedComponent){};
modify($objOrderedComponents){};
end
Regards
Sanal.P
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Performace-Issues-drools-tp3902270p3916...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
11:13 a.m.
I don't know your data model, but I believe, what you may be looking for is;
CONDITION:
$pt: Patient ( )
$test : LabTest( ) from $pt.labTests
not (exists (LabTest (testId == $test.testId)))
CONSEQUENCE
Insert($test);
If I am recalling this correctly, line2 does not inject anything into working memory yet,
and the only reference in memory to the collection of tests for the patent is $test.
Whereas Line 3 uses the Rete indexed items that were inserted into working memory, so what
you are effectively doing, is blocking the fact from being inserted twice, because one it
is inserted, it is indexed, and associated with the rules where it is uses, and since this
rule states it must not exist, this rule cannot fire again, since it can only be activated
when there is no matching labTest.
However, the test should not be inserted more than once, because it should only fire for
changes, not the whole list every time. To trigger a change on the original version of
the rule, you would have to change the Patient record to trigger a reactivation of the
rule.
In this modified version of the rule, any change to LabTest or Patient would trigger a
reactivation of the rule, so the original version may be the better rule, since it
involves less work to evaluate the activation triggers (only slightly, but less is less).
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of Pedro Loaiza
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 4:59 AM
To: Rules Users List
Cc: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Performace Issues drools
I want implement this. How would you control the insertion rule in order to avoid having
it insert duplicates or re-fire?
Thanks
On Apr 19, 2012, at 10:56 AM, "Welsh, Armand" <AWelsh(a)statestreet.com>
wrote:
This may no longer be the case, but my understanding is that when you
use from to query data from a member list of another object in working memory, that those
members are not indexed by Rete.
I think every time the rule evaluates, it has to iterate through the entire member list
(collection) to find the matching facts that are extracted for additional evaluation.
With that said, if you have one rule that extracts the facts, and inserts them into
working memory, they will be indexed and now many operations on the fact type will be
pre-computed at the time of insert, improving performance dramatically. I don't know
if this makes sense, but consider the following:
CONDITION:
$pt: Patient ( )
LabTest( ) from $pt.labTests
$numTests: Number ( ) from accumulate ( LabTest($type: type == "lab"),
count($type) )
Drools first collects all the Patient facts and for each Patient it extracts the
collections of tests. Now the collection of patients are already known by Rete, so this
has been pre-computed at time of fact insert.
Next, for each Patient fact, drools extracts the collection of LabTests performed. These
are not indexed by Rete to they are not actually in working memory. Each time this rule
is evaluated, the collection of LabTests must be generated.
Next the accumulate evaluates the LabTest facts to find those that have a getType() ==
"lab". Since the facts do not exist in working memory, accumulate iterates all
the LabTest fact and extracts just the ones where getType == "lab". If the rule
file 10 times, that's 10 iterations of the collection.
If you break this into two rules:
CONDITION:
$pt: Patient ( )
$test : LabTest( ) from $pt.labTests
CONSEQUENCE
Insert($test);
CONDITION:
$numTests: Number ( ) from accumulate ( LabTest($type: type == "lab"),
count($type) )
In this scenario, Drools only extracts the LabTest facts once, and inserts them in
working memory, so that when the 2nd rule is evaluated, it is already known which LabTest
facts are in memory that exist, and the iteration only happened once, at insert time,
instead at every rule evaluation.
My understanding may be obsolete, and inaccurate as it applies to Drools 5.4, but this is
the type of coding changes I have made in the past to improve performance. The key is
knowing how to control the insertion rule, so it does not insert duplicates, or refire
unexpectedly.
Care must be taken to ensure you are properly binding your facts when you do this
though... But the most speed benefit in drools comes from using the rete engine to avoid
multiple iterations of the same collection...
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of sanal
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 4:27 AM
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Performace Issues drools
Hi,
Still Iam facing some issues with the accumulte.Please see the below
senario.I am trying to explain with the below example.
Suppose Glucose is a OrderedComponent which is under Labgroup.
PackageComponent(Rule)
------------------------------
LABGroup (ComponentKey=100) qtyLimit(2)
OrderedComponent
-------------------------------
Order1 Glucose (ComponentKey=101) Ordered qty (1)
ParentKey(100), ParentKey(4)
Order2 Glucose (ComponentKey=101) Ordered qty (1)
ParentKey(100) ,ParentKey(4)
Order3 Glucose (ComponentKey=101) Ordered qty (1)
ParentKey(100), ParentKey(4)
Rule execution flow which i require.
1) I need to check any rule exist for Orderedcomponent.If exist Execute the
Rule.
In this case no rule exist for glucose.
2) If no rule is found for the Orderedcomponent.I need to Check if any rule
exist for its parent(group).
I am trying to achive this by changing the component key. The component
key is changed to that of
the parent and the rules are executed once again.This process is
contiuned until any rules exist for the group
or root parent is reached(tree format).
1st Issue
Here parent of glucose is Lab. And Lab has got rule.So the Parent rule
of lab should get executed.
In this senario only 2 glucose orders should go under package. 3rd one
should not go under package.
With my existing Drl all the 3 are going inside the package.How can i
correct this?
2nd Issue
While accumulating with lab group,all ordered items whose parent group is
lab should be summed up.
The salience is used in such a manner because i need to execute the rules
for the services first
and later the rules for its parents group.
Please find the modified drl as per your suggestion.
package com.his.billing.domain;
import com.his.clinical.domain.PackageDefinition;
import com.his.clinical.domain.PackageComponent;
import com.his.billing.domain.OrderedComponent;
import com.his.billing.domain.AccumulatedComponent;
/*#From row number: 12*/
rule "Check whether is orderedComponent is excluded"
salience 7
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isExcluded==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null &&
tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true)
then
$orderedComponent.setIsExluded(true);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
end
/*#From row number: 21*/
rule "Check whether is orderedComponent quantity limit exceeded"
salience 6
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$accumulatedQty:Number()
from accumulate (
$accQtyComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId, $AccQty
: componentQty) from
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($AccQty ) ) and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,(quantityLmt == 0 ||
quantityLmt != null || quantityLmt
<($qty+$accumulatedQty.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)))
then
$orderedComponent.setIsQtyExceeded(true);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
end
/*#From row number: 21*/
rule "Check whether is orderedComponent Amount limit exceeded"
salience 5
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$accumulatedAmount:Number()
from accumulate (
$accAmtComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,$accAmount:componentAmt)
from $objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($accAmount ) ) and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,( amountLmt == 0 ||
amountLmt == null || amountLmt
<($amount+$accumulatedAmount.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)))
then
$orderedComponent.setIsAmtExceeded(true);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
end
/*#From row number: 22*/
rule "Check whether is orderedComponent is exempted"
salience 4
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey)
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isPackageComponent==true,exemption==true,isActive==true)
then
$orderedComponent.setExemption(true);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
end
/*#From row number: 21*/
rule "Check whether orderedComponent satisfy all rules.Then assign package
id"
salience 3
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,packageChargeRecordId!=$packageId,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
and
$accumulatedAmount:Number()
from accumulate (
$accAmtComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,$accAmount:componentAmt)
from $objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($accAmount ) ) and
$accumulatedQty:Number()
from accumulate (
$accQtyComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId, $AccQty
: componentQty) from
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($AccQty ) ) and
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isExcluded==false,(amountLmt
== 0 || amountLmt == null || amountLmt
> =($amount+$accumulatedAmount.intValue())),( quantityLmt ==0 || quantityLmt
==null || quantityLmt
>
=($qty+$accumulatedQty.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
|| tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
(tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId))) from
$packageDefinition.getPackageComponentList()
then
$orderedComponent.setIsComponentApplicable(true);
$orderedComponent.setPackageChargeRecordId($packageId);
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
modify($orderedComponent){};
modify($objOrderedComponents){};
end
/*#From row number: 22*/
rule "If no rule exist for orderedComponent Check whether orderedComponent
is a pharmacy item then assign its generic naame and then apply the rules"
salience 2
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,isPackageComponent==false,componentType=="1052374",haveReachedRootNode==false)
then
$orderedComponent.setGenericComponentKey();
modify($orderedComponent){};
modify($objOrderedComponents){};
end
/*#From row number: 22*/
rule "If no rule exist for orderedComponent Check whether rule exist for
its parent group"
salience 1
when
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,isPackageComponent==false,haveReachedRootNode==false)
then
$orderedComponent.setGroupComponentKey();
modify($orderedComponent){};
modify($objOrderedComponents){};
end
Regards
Sanal.P
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Performace-Issues-drools-tp3902270p3916...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
11:55 a.m.
You can simplify the last condition to:
not LabTest(testId == $test.testId)
I think it's faster, too.
--- On Mon, 4/23/12, Welsh, Armand <AWelsh(a)statestreet.com> wrote:
From: Welsh, Armand <AWelsh(a)statestreet.com>
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Performace Issues drools
To: "'Rules Users List'" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Date: Monday, April 23, 2012, 11:13 AM
I don't know your data model, but I
believe, what you may be looking for is;
CONDITION:
$pt: Patient ( )
$test : LabTest( ) from $pt.labTests
not (exists (LabTest (testId ==
$test.testId)))
CONSEQUENCE
Insert($test);
If I am recalling this correctly, line2 does not inject
anything into working memory yet, and the only reference in
memory to the collection of tests for the patent is
$test. Whereas Line 3 uses the Rete indexed items that
were inserted into working memory, so what you are
effectively doing, is blocking the fact from being inserted
twice, because one it is inserted, it is indexed, and
associated with the rules where it is uses, and since this
rule states it must not exist, this rule cannot fire again,
since it can only be activated when there is no matching
labTest.
However, the test should not be inserted more than once,
because it should only fire for changes, not the whole list
every time. To trigger a change on the original
version of the rule, you would have to change the Patient
record to trigger a reactivation of the rule.
In this modified version of the rule, any change to LabTest
or Patient would trigger a reactivation of the rule, so the
original version may be the better rule, since it involves
less work to evaluate the activation triggers (only
slightly, but less is less).
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org]
On Behalf Of Pedro Loaiza
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 4:59 AM
To: Rules Users List
Cc: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Performace Issues drools
I want implement this. How would you control the
insertion rule in order to avoid having it insert duplicates
or re-fire?
Thanks
On Apr 19, 2012, at 10:56 AM, "Welsh, Armand" <AWelsh(a)statestreet.com>
wrote:
> This may no longer be the case, but my understanding is
that when you use from to query data from a member list of
another object in working memory, that those members are not
indexed by Rete.
>
> I think every time the rule evaluates, it has to
iterate through the entire member list (collection) to find
the matching facts that are extracted for additional
evaluation.
>
> With that said, if you have one rule that extracts the
facts, and inserts them into working memory, they will be
indexed and now many operations on the fact type will be
pre-computed at the time of insert, improving performance
dramatically. I don't know if this makes sense, but
consider the following:
>
>
> CONDITION:
> $pt: Patient ( )
> LabTest( ) from $pt.labTests
> $numTests: Number ( ) from accumulate
( LabTest($type: type == "lab"), count($type) )
>
> Drools first collects all the Patient facts and for
each Patient it extracts the collections of tests. Now
the collection of patients are already known by Rete, so
this has been pre-computed at time of fact insert.
> Next, for each Patient fact, drools extracts the
collection of LabTests performed. These are not indexed by
Rete to they are not actually in working memory. Each
time this rule is evaluated, the collection of LabTests must
be generated.
> Next the accumulate evaluates the LabTest facts to find
those that have a getType() == "lab". Since the facts
do not exist in working memory, accumulate iterates all the
LabTest fact and extracts just the ones where getType ==
"lab". If the rule file 10 times, that's 10 iterations
of the collection.
>
> If you break this into two rules:
>
> CONDITION:
> $pt: Patient ( )
> $test : LabTest( ) from $pt.labTests
> CONSEQUENCE
> Insert($test);
>
> CONDITION:
> $numTests: Number ( ) from accumulate
( LabTest($type: type == "lab"), count($type) )
>
>
> In this scenario, Drools only extracts the LabTest
facts once, and inserts them in working memory, so that when
the 2nd rule is evaluated, it is already known which LabTest
facts are in memory that exist, and the iteration only
happened once, at insert time, instead at every rule
evaluation.
>
> My understanding may be obsolete, and inaccurate as it
applies to Drools 5.4, but this is the type of coding
changes I have made in the past to improve
performance. The key is knowing how to control the
insertion rule, so it does not insert duplicates, or refire
unexpectedly.
>
> Care must be taken to ensure you are properly binding
your facts when you do this though... But the most speed
benefit in drools comes from using the rete engine to avoid
multiple iterations of the same collection...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org]
On Behalf Of sanal
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 4:27 AM
> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Performace Issues drools
>
> Hi,
> Still Iam facing some issues with the accumulte.Please
see the below
> senario.I am trying to explain with the below example.
>
>
>
>
> Suppose Glucose is a OrderedComponent which is under
Labgroup.
>
>
>
> PackageComponent(Rule)
>
> ------------------------------
> LABGroup (ComponentKey=100)
qtyLimit(2)
>
>
> OrderedComponent
>
> -------------------------------
> Order1 Glucose
(ComponentKey=101) Ordered
qty (1)
> ParentKey(100), ParentKey(4)
> Order2 Glucose
(ComponentKey=101) Ordered
qty (1)
> ParentKey(100) ,ParentKey(4)
> Order3 Glucose
(ComponentKey=101) Ordered
qty (1)
> ParentKey(100), ParentKey(4)
>
>
>
> Rule execution flow which i require.
>
>
>
> 1) I need to check any rule exist for
Orderedcomponent.If exist Execute the
> Rule.
>
> In this case no rule exist for
glucose.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2) If no rule is found for the Orderedcomponent.I need
to Check if any rule
> exist for its parent(group).
> I am trying to achive this by changing
the component key. The component
> key is changed to that of
> the parent and the rules are executed
once again.This process is
> contiuned until any rules exist for the group
>
> or root parent is reached(tree format).
>
>
>
>
>
> 1st Issue
> Here parent of glucose is Lab.
And Lab has got rule.So the Parent rule
> of lab should get executed.
> In this senario only 2 glucose orders
should go under package. 3rd one
> should not go under package.
> With my existing Drl all the 3 are
going inside the package.How can i
> correct this?
>
> 2nd Issue
> While accumulating with lab group,all
ordered items whose parent group is
> lab should be summed up.
>
>
> The salience is used in such a manner
because i need to execute the rules
> for the services first
> and later the rules for its parents
group.
>
>
>
> Please find the modified drl as per
your suggestion.
>
>
>
>
>
> package com.his.billing.domain;
>
> import com.his.clinical.domain.PackageDefinition;
> import com.his.clinical.domain.PackageComponent;
> import com.his.billing.domain.OrderedComponent;
> import com.his.billing.domain.AccumulatedComponent;
>
>
> /*#From row number: 12*/
> rule "Check whether is orderedComponent is
excluded"
>
> salience 7
> when
> $objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
>
>
>
>
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
> and
>
>
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isExcluded==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
> || tariffClassTypeValue=="" ||
(tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
> tariffClassTypeValue ==
$orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
> (tariffClassValue!=null &&
>
tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true)
> then
> $orderedComponent.setIsExluded(true);
>
>
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
> end
> /*#From row number: 21*/
> rule "Check whether is orderedComponent quantity
limit exceeded"
>
> salience 6
> when
> $objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
>
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
>
>
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
> and
> $accumulatedQty:Number()
> from accumulate (
>
$accQtyComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,
$AccQty
> : componentQty) from
>
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($AccQty
) ) and
>
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,(quantityLmt
== 0 ||
> quantityLmt != null || quantityLmt
>
<($qty+$accumulatedQty.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
> || tariffClassTypeValue=="" ||
(tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
> tariffClassTypeValue ==
$orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
> (tariffClassValue!=null &&
tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)))
> then
> $orderedComponent.setIsQtyExceeded(true);
>
>
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
> end
> /*#From row number: 21*/
> rule "Check whether is orderedComponent Amount
limit exceeded"
>
> salience 5
> when
> $objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
>
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
>
>
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
> and
> $accumulatedAmount:Number()
> from accumulate (
>
$accAmtComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,$accAmount:componentAmt)
> from
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($accAmount
) ) and
> $pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,(
amountLmt == 0 ||
> amountLmt == null || amountLmt
>
<($amount+$accumulatedAmount.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
> || tariffClassTypeValue=="" ||
(tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
> tariffClassTypeValue ==
$orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
> (tariffClassValue!=null &&
tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)))
> then
> $orderedComponent.setIsAmtExceeded(true);
>
> $orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
> end
>
> /*#From row number: 22*/
> rule "Check whether is orderedComponent is
exempted"
>
> salience 4
> when
>
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
>
>
>
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey)
>
>
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isPackageComponent==true,exemption==true,isActive==true)
> then
> $orderedComponent.setExemption(true);
>
> $orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
> end
> /*#From row number: 21*/
> rule "Check whether orderedComponent satisfy all
rules.Then assign package
> id"
>
> salience 3
> when
>
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
>
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
>
>
>
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,packageChargeRecordId!=$packageId,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
> and
>
> $accumulatedAmount:Number()
> from accumulate (
>
$accAmtComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,$accAmount:componentAmt)
> from
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($accAmount
) ) and
> $accumulatedQty:Number()
> from accumulate (
>
$accQtyComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,
$AccQty
> : componentQty) from
>
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($AccQty
) ) and
>
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isExcluded==false,(amountLmt
> == 0 || amountLmt == null || amountLmt
>> =($amount+$accumulatedAmount.intValue())),(
quantityLmt ==0 || quantityLmt
> ==null || quantityLmt
>>
=($qty+$accumulatedQty.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
> || tariffClassTypeValue=="" ||
(tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
> tariffClassTypeValue ==
$orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
> (tariffClassValue!=null &&
tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId))) from
> $packageDefinition.getPackageComponentList()
> then
> $orderedComponent.setIsComponentApplicable(true);
>
$orderedComponent.setPackageChargeRecordId($packageId);
>
>
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
> modify($orderedComponent){};
> modify($objOrderedComponents){};
> end
>
>
> /*#From row number: 22*/
> rule "If no rule exist for orderedComponent Check
whether orderedComponent
> is a pharmacy item then assign its generic naame and
then apply the rules"
>
> salience 2
> when
>
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
>
>
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,isPackageComponent==false,componentType=="1052374",haveReachedRootNode==false)
> then
>
$orderedComponent.setGenericComponentKey();
>
>
modify($orderedComponent){};
>
modify($objOrderedComponents){};
>
> end
> /*#From row number: 22*/
>
> rule "If no rule exist for orderedComponent Check
whether rule exist for
> its parent group"
>
> salience 1
> when
>
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
>
>
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,isPackageComponent==false,haveReachedRootNode==false)
> then
>
$orderedComponent.setGroupComponentKey();
>
> modify($orderedComponent){};
>
modify($objOrderedComponents){};
> end
>
>
> Regards
> Sanal.P
>
> --
> View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Performace-Issues-drools-tp3902270p3916...
> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive
at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
12:09 p.m.
I will have to play with performance testing on these conditions.
My understanding was that there is not real performance difference, because every fact
insert get evaluated at insert time for rules that reference the facts, and then with
exists, you are only limiting the rule to one activation for that conditional, whereas
with your example, there could be multiple matches in working memory, and thus multiple
activations...
In reality, it's a "not" evaluation, so they are probably identical in this
case. Either way, a performance test of large numbers of facts is definitely in my
future... haha
Armand
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of Greg Barton
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 9:55 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Performace Issues drools
You can simplify the last condition to:
not LabTest(testId == $test.testId)
I think it's faster, too.
--- On Mon, 4/23/12, Welsh, Armand <AWelsh(a)statestreet.com> wrote:
From: Welsh, Armand <AWelsh(a)statestreet.com>
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Performace Issues drools
To: "'Rules Users List'" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Date: Monday, April 23, 2012, 11:13 AM
I don't know your data model, but I
believe, what you may be looking for is;
CONDITION:
$pt: Patient ( )
$test : LabTest( ) from $pt.labTests
not (exists (LabTest (testId ==
$test.testId)))
CONSEQUENCE
Insert($test);
If I am recalling this correctly, line2 does not inject
anything into working memory yet, and the only reference in
memory to the collection of tests for the patent is
$test. Whereas Line 3 uses the Rete indexed items that
were inserted into working memory, so what you are
effectively doing, is blocking the fact from being inserted
twice, because one it is inserted, it is indexed, and
associated with the rules where it is uses, and since this
rule states it must not exist, this rule cannot fire again,
since it can only be activated when there is no matching
labTest.
However, the test should not be inserted more than once,
because it should only fire for changes, not the whole list
every time. To trigger a change on the original
version of the rule, you would have to change the Patient
record to trigger a reactivation of the rule.
In this modified version of the rule, any change to LabTest
or Patient would trigger a reactivation of the rule, so the
original version may be the better rule, since it involves
less work to evaluate the activation triggers (only
slightly, but less is less).
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org]
On Behalf Of Pedro Loaiza
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 4:59 AM
To: Rules Users List
Cc: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Performace Issues drools
I want implement this. How would you control the
insertion rule in order to avoid having it insert duplicates
or re-fire?
Thanks
On Apr 19, 2012, at 10:56 AM, "Welsh, Armand" <AWelsh(a)statestreet.com>
wrote:
> This may no longer be the case, but my understanding is
that when you use from to query data from a member list of
another object in working memory, that those members are not
indexed by Rete.
>
> I think every time the rule evaluates, it has to
iterate through the entire member list (collection) to find
the matching facts that are extracted for additional
evaluation.
>
> With that said, if you have one rule that extracts the
facts, and inserts them into working memory, they will be
indexed and now many operations on the fact type will be
pre-computed at the time of insert, improving performance
dramatically. I don't know if this makes sense, but
consider the following:
>
>
> CONDITION:
> $pt: Patient ( )
> LabTest( ) from $pt.labTests
> $numTests: Number ( ) from accumulate
( LabTest($type: type == "lab"), count($type) )
>
> Drools first collects all the Patient facts and for
each Patient it extracts the collections of tests. Now
the collection of patients are already known by Rete, so
this has been pre-computed at time of fact insert.
> Next, for each Patient fact, drools extracts the
collection of LabTests performed. These are not indexed by
Rete to they are not actually in working memory. Each
time this rule is evaluated, the collection of LabTests must
be generated.
> Next the accumulate evaluates the LabTest facts to find
those that have a getType() == "lab". Since the facts
do not exist in working memory, accumulate iterates all the
LabTest fact and extracts just the ones where getType ==
"lab". If the rule file 10 times, that's 10 iterations
of the collection.
>
> If you break this into two rules:
>
> CONDITION:
> $pt: Patient ( )
> $test : LabTest( ) from $pt.labTests
> CONSEQUENCE
> Insert($test);
>
> CONDITION:
> $numTests: Number ( ) from accumulate
( LabTest($type: type == "lab"), count($type) )
>
>
> In this scenario, Drools only extracts the LabTest
facts once, and inserts them in working memory, so that when
the 2nd rule is evaluated, it is already known which LabTest
facts are in memory that exist, and the iteration only
happened once, at insert time, instead at every rule
evaluation.
>
> My understanding may be obsolete, and inaccurate as it
applies to Drools 5.4, but this is the type of coding
changes I have made in the past to improve
performance. The key is knowing how to control the
insertion rule, so it does not insert duplicates, or refire
unexpectedly.
>
> Care must be taken to ensure you are properly binding
your facts when you do this though... But the most speed
benefit in drools comes from using the rete engine to avoid
multiple iterations of the same collection...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org]
On Behalf Of sanal
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 4:27 AM
> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Performace Issues drools
>
> Hi,
> Still Iam facing some issues with the accumulte.Please
see the below
> senario.I am trying to explain with the below example.
>
>
>
>
> Suppose Glucose is a OrderedComponent which is under
Labgroup.
>
>
>
> PackageComponent(Rule)
>
> ------------------------------
> LABGroup (ComponentKey=100)
qtyLimit(2)
>
>
> OrderedComponent
>
> -------------------------------
> Order1 Glucose
(ComponentKey=101) Ordered
qty (1)
> ParentKey(100), ParentKey(4)
> Order2 Glucose
(ComponentKey=101) Ordered
qty (1)
> ParentKey(100) ,ParentKey(4)
> Order3 Glucose
(ComponentKey=101) Ordered
qty (1)
> ParentKey(100), ParentKey(4)
>
>
>
> Rule execution flow which i require.
>
>
>
> 1) I need to check any rule exist for
Orderedcomponent.If exist Execute the
> Rule.
>
> In this case no rule exist for
glucose.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2) If no rule is found for the Orderedcomponent.I need
to Check if any rule
> exist for its parent(group).
> I am trying to achive this by changing
the component key. The component
> key is changed to that of
> the parent and the rules are executed
once again.This process is
> contiuned until any rules exist for the group
>
> or root parent is reached(tree format).
>
>
>
>
>
> 1st Issue
> Here parent of glucose is Lab.
And Lab has got rule.So the Parent rule
> of lab should get executed.
> In this senario only 2 glucose orders
should go under package. 3rd one
> should not go under package.
> With my existing Drl all the 3 are
going inside the package.How can i
> correct this?
>
> 2nd Issue
> While accumulating with lab group,all
ordered items whose parent group is
> lab should be summed up.
>
>
> The salience is used in such a manner
because i need to execute the rules
> for the services first
> and later the rules for its parents
group.
>
>
>
> Please find the modified drl as per
your suggestion.
>
>
>
>
>
> package com.his.billing.domain;
>
> import com.his.clinical.domain.PackageDefinition;
> import com.his.clinical.domain.PackageComponent;
> import com.his.billing.domain.OrderedComponent;
> import com.his.billing.domain.AccumulatedComponent;
>
>
> /*#From row number: 12*/
> rule "Check whether is orderedComponent is
excluded"
>
> salience 7
> when
> $objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
>
>
>
>
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
> and
>
>
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isExcluded==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
> || tariffClassTypeValue=="" ||
(tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
> tariffClassTypeValue ==
$orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
> (tariffClassValue!=null &&
>
tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true)
> then
> $orderedComponent.setIsExluded(true);
>
>
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
> end
> /*#From row number: 21*/
> rule "Check whether is orderedComponent quantity
limit exceeded"
>
> salience 6
> when
> $objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
>
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
>
>
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
> and
> $accumulatedQty:Number()
> from accumulate (
>
$accQtyComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,
$AccQty
> : componentQty) from
>
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($AccQty
) ) and
>
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,(quantityLmt
== 0 ||
> quantityLmt != null || quantityLmt
>
<($qty+$accumulatedQty.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
> || tariffClassTypeValue=="" ||
(tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
> tariffClassTypeValue ==
$orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
> (tariffClassValue!=null &&
tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)))
> then
> $orderedComponent.setIsQtyExceeded(true);
>
>
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
> end
> /*#From row number: 21*/
> rule "Check whether is orderedComponent Amount
limit exceeded"
>
> salience 5
> when
> $objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
>
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
>
>
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
> and
> $accumulatedAmount:Number()
> from accumulate (
>
$accAmtComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,$accAmount:componentAmt)
> from
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($accAmount
) ) and
> $pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,(
amountLmt == 0 ||
> amountLmt == null || amountLmt
>
<($amount+$accumulatedAmount.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
> || tariffClassTypeValue=="" ||
(tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
> tariffClassTypeValue ==
$orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
> (tariffClassValue!=null &&
tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)))
> then
> $orderedComponent.setIsAmtExceeded(true);
>
> $orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
> end
>
> /*#From row number: 22*/
> rule "Check whether is orderedComponent is
exempted"
>
> salience 4
> when
>
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
>
>
>
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey)
>
>
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isPackageComponent==true,exemption==true,isActive==true)
> then
> $orderedComponent.setExemption(true);
>
> $orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
> end
> /*#From row number: 21*/
> rule "Check whether orderedComponent satisfy all
rules.Then assign package
> id"
>
> salience 3
> when
>
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
>
$packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId)
>
>
>
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,packageChargeRecordId!=$packageId,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue)
> and
>
> $accumulatedAmount:Number()
> from accumulate (
>
$accAmtComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,$accAmount:componentAmt)
> from
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($accAmount
) ) and
> $accumulatedQty:Number()
> from accumulate (
>
$accQtyComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,
$AccQty
> : componentQty) from
>
$objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($AccQty
) ) and
>
$pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isExcluded==false,(amountLmt
> == 0 || amountLmt == null || amountLmt
>> =($amount+$accumulatedAmount.intValue())),(
quantityLmt ==0 || quantityLmt
> ==null || quantityLmt
>>
=($qty+$accumulatedQty.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null
> || tariffClassTypeValue=="" ||
(tariffClassTypeValue!=null &&
> tariffClassTypeValue ==
$orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null ||
> (tariffClassValue!=null &&
tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId))) from
> $packageDefinition.getPackageComponentList()
> then
> $orderedComponent.setIsComponentApplicable(true);
>
$orderedComponent.setPackageChargeRecordId($packageId);
>
>
$orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true);
> modify($orderedComponent){};
> modify($objOrderedComponents){};
> end
>
>
> /*#From row number: 22*/
> rule "If no rule exist for orderedComponent Check
whether orderedComponent
> is a pharmacy item then assign its generic naame and
then apply the rules"
>
> salience 2
> when
>
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
>
>
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,isPackageComponent==false,componentType=="1052374",haveReachedRootNode==false)
> then
>
$orderedComponent.setGenericComponentKey();
>
>
modify($orderedComponent){};
>
modify($objOrderedComponents){};
>
> end
> /*#From row number: 22*/
>
> rule "If no rule exist for orderedComponent Check
whether rule exist for
> its parent group"
>
> salience 1
> when
>
$objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent()
>
>
$orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,isPackageComponent==false,haveReachedRootNode==false)
> then
>
$orderedComponent.setGroupComponentKey();
>
> modify($orderedComponent){};
>
modify($objOrderedComponents){};
> end
>
>
> Regards
> Sanal.P
>
> --
> View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Performace-Issues-drools-tp3902270p3916...
> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive
at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
4600
days inactive
4612
days old
10 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Greg Barton -
Pedro Loaiza -
sanal -
Welsh, Armand -
Wolfgang Laun