Hi, I'm having some difficulty to understand the concept of grouping, but maybe it's only because of my understanding of the terms, so please apologize for the silly question 1. when you are saying "rules fire", does this mean: matching/checking the LHS of rule, or executing the RHS of rule 2. I plan to use the grouping features of drools, but still not sure whether(and how) to use the agenda or activation group (or even the rule-flow). My problem domain is actually quite simple: - rules are applied based on e.g age of a person. Now, there are some rules for 17-year-or older, and some for 30-year-old person, if I'm to use the agenda group, I'd define the following: rule1 agenda-group "17 years-old or older" when p:Person (Age > 17) .... rule2 agenda-group "17 years-old or older" when p:Person (Age > 17) ..... rule3 agenda-group "30 years-old or older" when p:Person (Age > 30) ...... rule4 agenda-group "30 years-old or older" when p:Person (Age > 30) ...... If I assert a person into the WM to check his/her age, I want that only the rules in 30-years-old agenda are CHECKED (and eventually executed when the other constraints are fulfilled), bcs they are surely older than 17 as well. And this is not only for comparing ages. Another example, some rules are only for Gender.MALE, and some only for Gender.FEMALE. So if a person is asserted, only the rules with corresponding gender will be checked and no need of checking/matching the other group The main purpose is just to skip checking unrelevant rules (imagine if there is only 1 rule for MALE and 1000 rules for FEMALE with 1000 times WHEN person (gender == FEMALE) checking for an asserted male-object). How can I do this effectively? Or will ALL rules checked and only the order of checking (and eventually exection of their RHS) is defined by the grouping? I hope I've described my problem clearly and I'll try to explain this again in case of difficulty :) Thanks in advance Regards -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/some-basic-questions-to-grouping-tp19048066p1904806... Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

1. when you are saying "rules fire", does this mean: matching/checking the LHS of rule, or executing the RHS of rule Means execute the RHS. The LHS of the rules is evaluated at "assert time". Take a look at the docs for more info on that. 2. I plan to use the grouping features of drools, but still not sure.. First a quick explanation: * agenda-groups allow you to control in what order rules are **fired**, because only rules from the active agenda-group are allowed to fire. * activation-groups allow you to create mutually exclusive rules, because when a rule in an activation-group **fires**, it cancel all other activations in the same group. None of it is what you want. In fact, you should not worry about the cases you described. Just write your patterns and constraints in the same order as much as possible, and also always write more constraining patterns before the more general patterns and let the engine do its magic. If you have 1 rule where gender is Gender.MALE, and 1000 rules where it is Gender.FEMALE and you assert a male (or female, dos not matter) Person, the engine will execute the condition only twice, because it shares the Gender.FEMALE constraint among all the rules, assuming you write the constraints in the same order. An even more interesting situation is: pretend you have some kind of discriminating attribute for person, like countryOfBirth, and you have 100 rules for each country that you have to handle (lets say 100). So, you have 100 x 100 = 10000 rules: Rule x1 when Person( countryOfBirth == Country.CANADA... ... Rule x500 when Person( countryOfBirth == Country.BRAZIL... ... Guess how many times that condition will be executed for a Person whose country is CANADA (or any other country, does not matter)? Only **once**, because of an optimization called alpha hashing. Now range conditions are not hashed, but they still have node sharing, so as long as you write them in the same order, they are still optimized. The only problem you will have is if you start using accumulate and collect, that are really expensive in terms of performance. In cases like that, you will need a manual optimization, but it is still doable. Hope it helps. Edson 2008/8/19 psentosa <psentosa(a)yahoo.com&gt; > > Hi, > > I'm having some difficulty to understand the concept of grouping, but > maybe > it's only because of my understanding of the terms, so please apologize > for > the silly question > 1. when you are saying "rules fire", does this mean: matching/checking > the > LHS of rule, or executing the RHS of rule > > 2. I plan to use the grouping features of drools, but still not sure > whether(and how) to use the agenda or activation group (or even the > rule-flow). My problem domain is actually quite simple: > - rules are applied based on e.g age of a person. Now, there are some > rules > for 17-year-or older, and some for 30-year-old person, if I'm to use the > agenda group, I'd define the following: > > rule1 > agenda-group "17 years-old or older" > when > p:Person (Age > 17) > .... > > rule2 > agenda-group "17 years-old or older" > when > p:Person (Age > 17) > ..... > > rule3 > agenda-group "30 years-old or older" > when > p:Person (Age > 30) > ...... > > rule4 > agenda-group "30 years-old or older" > when > p:Person (Age > 30) > ...... > > If I assert a person into the WM to check his/her age, I want that only > the > rules in 30-years-old agenda are CHECKED (and eventually executed when > the > other constraints are fulfilled), bcs they are surely older than 17 as > well. > And this is not only for comparing ages. Another example, some rules are > only for Gender.MALE, and some only for Gender.FEMALE. So if a person is > asserted, only the rules with corresponding gender will be checked and no > need of checking/matching the other group > The main purpose is just to skip checking unrelevant rules (imagine if > there > is only 1 rule for MALE and 1000 rules for FEMALE with 1000 times WHEN > person (gender == FEMALE) checking for an asserted male-object). > How can I do this effectively? Or will ALL rules checked and only the > order > of checking (and eventually exection of their RHS) is defined by the > grouping? > > I hope I've described my problem clearly and I'll try to explain this > again > in case of difficulty :) > Thanks in advance > > Regards > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/some-basic-questions-to-grouping-tp19048066p1904806... > Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

1. Rete network is built at rulebase "compile" time, i.e., when you add packages to the Rulebase: ruleBase.addPackageFromDrl( ... ); // and similar API calls At assert time, the facts are propagated and when you call fireAllRules(), active rules are fired. 2. These are part of the internal optimization algorithms. Let me try to simplify things, but talking about 2 optimizations we have: * node sharing: every time you have the same condition (even among different rules), the engine will try to share them, so that you have it executed only once. Writing conditions in the same order helps to achieve this. So, for the first example, when you have the Gender constraints, it will share the Gender.FEMALE constraints among the 1000 rules and will execute it only once. The Gender.MALE constraint is also executed once, and then you have 2 executions in total. * alpha hashing: this is a bit more complicate, but when you have mutually exclusive constraints on the same field, you know that only one of them is correct. So, if you have 100 different constraints like this: Person( countryOfBirth == Country.CANADA... Person( countryOfBirth == Country.BRAZIL... You know that only one of them will be true. The engine detects that and instead of evaluating every constraint, where 99 of them will fail, it will hash all the constraints. Then, when a fact is asserted (lets say contryOfBirth is BRAZIL), instead of going through all the constraints, it applies the hash function on the attribute value (BRAZIL) and knows where the constraint is. So it will only evaluate that constraint and forget about the others, since they will fail anyway. Having said that, the first example (gender) is also mutually exclusive, but there are only 2 possible values. What happens is that there is a cost to calculate the hash value on the alpha hashing optimization and the cost does not pay off if you have only 2 possible values. In fact, after doing some research we found that the ideal cardinality to activate the alpha hashing optimization is 3, but that is a parameter you can configure using RuleBaseConfiguration (either by API or by a system property). So, by default, that optimization only kicks in when you have 3 or more possible values (like the country of birth) and not with 2 or less (like gender). 3. Sorry, I don't see your attachement. But anyway, rule-flow, agenda-groups and etc are used to control rule "firing" order, not rule evaluation. Rete will evaluate your rules eagerly, even if your group is not active. In your case, with mutually exclusive constraints in your patterns, you should not worry about that. Let the engine optimize the matching for you. If you find performance problems, then come back and we can see if there is any sub-optimal rules in your rule set. Until then, don't worry with it. []s Edson 2008/8/19 psentosa <psentosa(a)yahoo.com&gt; > > Jakob, Edson, thanks a lot for your replies especially on agenda vs > activation-group :) > > But please allow me to ask some further questions: > 1. The LHS of the rules is evaluated at "assert time". > When is actually the RETE network built? On assertion, will a fact then > be > propagated over the network? > > 2. The example with Gender and countryOfBirth: > For the gender example, you said the condition will be executed only > twice. So I assumed it's because there are 2 possibilities of gender. But > the example with countryOfBirth with 100 possibilities, why only once? > > 3. Back to my problem I described before: > Before I read your reply (Edson's), I try to follow the suggestion from > Jakob, namely using the ruleflow-group. So I came up with a the > ruleflow-graph I attached (please have a look if you don't mind) > http://www.nabble.com/file/p19053522/regulation-check.rfm > regulation-check.rfm<http://www.nabble.com/file/p19053522/regulation-c...;. > I try to describe the following hierarchy: > There are certain rules only for young people; if they are older, than it > will be checked, whether he/she is a male/female. Another group of rules > is > only valid for females, the rest of the rules are valid for both male and > female. does the graph correspond correctly to the problem I describe? Is > it > better to use such grouping or like you said, just write my patterns and > constraints as much as possible (without the grouping)? > Again thanks in advance! > > Regards > > > > > Edson Tirelli-3 wrote: > > > > 1. when you are saying "rules fire", does this mean: matching/checking > the > > LHS of rule, or executing the RHS of rule > > > > Means execute the RHS. The LHS of the rules is evaluated at "assert > time". > > Take a look at the docs for more info on that. > > > > 2. I plan to use the grouping features of drools, but still not sure.. > > > > First a quick explanation: > > * agenda-groups allow you to control in what order rules are **fired**, > > because only rules from the active agenda-group are allowed to fire. > > * activation-groups allow you to create mutually exclusive rules, > because > > when a rule in an activation-group **fires**, it cancel all other > > activations in the same group. > > > > None of it is what you want. In fact, you should not worry about the > cases > > you described. Just write your patterns and constraints in the same > order > > as > > much as possible, and also always write more constraining patterns > before > > the more general patterns and let the engine do its magic. > > > > If you have 1 rule where gender is Gender.MALE, and 1000 rules where it > is > > Gender.FEMALE and you assert a male (or female, dos not matter) Person, > > the > > engine will execute the condition only twice, because it shares the > > Gender.FEMALE constraint among all the rules, assuming you write the > > constraints in the same order. An even more interesting situation is: > > pretend you have some kind of discriminating attribute for person, like > > countryOfBirth, and you have 100 rules for each country that you have > to > > handle (lets say 100). So, you have 100 x 100 = 10000 rules: > > > > Rule x1 when Person( countryOfBirth == Country.CANADA... > > ... > > Rule x500 when Person( countryOfBirth == Country.BRAZIL... > > ... > > > > Guess how many times that condition will be executed for a Person whose > > country is CANADA (or any other country, does not matter)? Only > **once**, > > because of an optimization called alpha hashing. > > > > Now range conditions are not hashed, but they still have node sharing, > so > > as > > long as you write them in the same order, they are still optimized. The > > only > > problem you will have is if you start using accumulate and collect, > that > > are > > really expensive in terms of performance. In cases like that, you will > > need > > a manual optimization, but it is still doable. > > > > Hope it helps. > > > > Edson > > > > > > 2008/8/19 psentosa <psentosa(a)yahoo.com&gt; > > > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm having some difficulty to understand the concept of grouping, but > >> maybe > >> it's only because of my understanding of the terms, so please > apologize > >> for > >> the silly question > >> 1. when you are saying "rules fire", does this mean: matching/checking > >> the > >> LHS of rule, or executing the RHS of rule > >> > >> 2. I plan to use the grouping features of drools, but still not sure > >> whether(and how) to use the agenda or activation group (or even the > >> rule-flow). My problem domain is actually quite simple: > >> - rules are applied based on e.g age of a person. Now, there are some > >> rules > >> for 17-year-or older, and some for 30-year-old person, if I'm to use > the > >> agenda group, I'd define the following: > >> > >> rule1 > >> agenda-group "17 years-old or older" > >> when > >> p:Person (Age > 17) > >> .... > >> > >> rule2 > >> agenda-group "17 years-old or older" > >> when > >> p:Person (Age > 17) > >> ..... > >> > >> rule3 > >> agenda-group "30 years-old or older" > >> when > >> p:Person (Age > 30) > >> ...... > >> > >> rule4 > >> agenda-group "30 years-old or older" > >> when > >> p:Person (Age > 30) > >> ...... > >> > >> If I assert a person into the WM to check his/her age, I want that > only > >> the > >> rules in 30-years-old agenda are CHECKED (and eventually executed when > >> the > >> other constraints are fulfilled), bcs they are surely older than 17 as > >> well. > >> And this is not only for comparing ages. Another example, some rules > are > >> only for Gender.MALE, and some only for Gender.FEMALE. So if a person > is > >> asserted, only the rules with corresponding gender will be checked and > no > >> need of checking/matching the other group > >> The main purpose is just to skip checking unrelevant rules (imagine if > >> there > >> is only 1 rule for MALE and 1000 rules for FEMALE with 1000 times WHEN > >> person (gender == FEMALE) checking for an asserted male-object). > >> How can I do this effectively? Or will ALL rules checked and only the > >> order > >> of checking (and eventually exection of their RHS) is defined by the > >> grouping? > >> > >> I hope I've described my problem clearly and I'll try to explain this > >> again > >> in case of difficulty :) > >> Thanks in advance > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> > >> -- > >> View this message in context: > >> > http://www.nabble.com/some-basic-questions-to-grouping-tp19048066p1904806... > >> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rules-users mailing list > >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Edson Tirelli > > JBoss Drools Core Development > > JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rules-users mailing list > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/some-basic-questions-to-grouping-tp19048066p1905352... > Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users