Re: Re: [rules-users] Independent rule evaluations

I guess you need to talk to Kris, the ruleflow master. :) 2008/11/6 techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com&gt; > > Thanks Edson for the clarification. > 1. actually I want to manage rule flow from the database. > Do I have to store whole rfm file content in the database as text column? > If so, I was looking at the sample rfm file and its content does not look > simpler. If I want to edit to rfm file in the database(add/remove nodes > or > rule group etc),it seems too much complicated or very error prone.Editing > of > rfm does not look feasible without using eclipse graphical editor. If > that's > the case, How can I have rule flow as database driven? Or may be whenever > I > want to edit rule flow, then I can do it in the eclipse GUI and update > the > content in the databse. then I wont call this as database driven. Please > clarify. > > > Edson Tirelli-3 wrote: > > > > Trying to answer: > > > > 1. not sure what you mean. You design a rule flow as a sequence of > steps > > (groups) in the same way you would do when designing a workflow. When > you > > write your rules, you associate those rules to groups in that flow. The > > ruleflow design itself is an XML file. So, the general answer is: you > can > > store a ruleflow in a database. Rebuilding the rulebase is fine, and > > AFAIK, > > ruleflows are dynamic, so you can add them to existing rulebases. Kris > can > > confirm this to you. > > > > 2. yes, there are several optimizations you can do to the engine and to > > your > > rules, in a similar way you would do for a database. Which > optimizations > > and > > how to do it can only be answered by seeing your use case, and fine > > tunning > > it. Regarding volumes, we have users using thousands of rules and > millions > > of facts without problems, but as you know, the bigger the size, more > > careful you need to be on the engine configuration and the quality of > your > > rules. > > I'm trying to get a user to write a blog on the sizing of the > application > > they have right now. I don't want to disclose the information before > they > > allow me to do it, but their specific solution does not have as many > rules > > as yours, but process a similar volume of facts as yours in 2-hours > > windows. > > They run in a server with just a few cores, but use a considerable > amount > > of > > memory. > > > > Regarding your question about if a production rules engine fits your > > use > > case, Rete algorithm as a general rule, will provide increasing > benefits > > as > > the rule base grows, because more rules you have, more you will benefit > of > > optimizations like node sharing and other techniques. > > > > If you go ahead, I suggest you contact Red Hat. They can help with > your > > solution design, training (if necessary) as well as provide support for > > development and production. > > > > []s > > Edson > > > > 2008/11/4 techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > >> > >> Thanks Edson. > >> Few more questions based on my requirements. > >> > >> I want to load all rules from the database once for everyday(during > daily > >> job startup) and apply them against huge amount of data.here rules are > >> once > >> loaded, no further need for dynamic addition/removal during that > >> execution. > >> But If I add any new rules to the database, rule engine should be able > to > >> pick those during next execution(Intention here is to provide a custom > >> editor later on for the user to manage the rules.since droosl's BRMS > does > >> not seem handle all of our use case conditions, I've concluded to have > >> custom BRMS). > >> > >> 1.Can I have rule flow as database driven? > >> i.e Can I store rule flow content for each rule as text column in the > >> database and create rule flow file during the execution of each day? > >> > >> 2. my requirement is to run 1200 use cases(rules) against 40- 50 > million > >> records each day, I'm really concerned about execution time also. Can > I > >> do > >> any optimization in the rule engine for faster execution? > >> Is rule engine still a good option in this case? > >> > >> appreciate your help. > >> > >> > >> > >> Edson Tirelli-3 wrote: > >> > > >> > Yuri, > >> > > >> > Right now, the only way is to work with different rule bases and > >> > working > >> > memories. Even using agenda-groups or rule-flow, rules are still > being > >> > eagerly evaluated, as this is how standard Rete works. > >> > The problem of creating and canceling too many activations is a > >> known > >> > problem and the only way around it right now is sequential mode, but > >> > sequential mode has some restrictions on what you can do. For > instance, > >> > you > >> > must work with a stateless working memory and can not modify/retract > >> facts > >> > in your rules to work with sequential mode, but it will give you big > >> > performance boosts. > >> > > >> > We are evaluating the possibility of creating physical network > >> > partitions for next version, but that will require some R&D yet. > >> > > >> > []s > >> > Edson > >> > > >> > 2007/8/14, Yuri <ydewit(a)gmail.com&gt;: > >> >> > >> >> Dr. Gernot Starke <gs <at> gernotstarke.de> writes: > >> >> > can you detail your problem a little? > >> >> > >> >> I basically need to find perfect matches between two different sets > of > >> >> objects. > >> >> If perfect matches are not found, I then create bulks of objects > that > >> are > >> >> then > >> >> used in combination with the individual ones to find bulk matches. > If > >> no > >> >> matches > >> >> are found I need then to categorize the breaks (around 10 different > >> >> categorizations) and report them. > >> >> > >> >> The matching criteria between two object is specific enough to be > >> fast. > >> >> Once I > >> >> get into break, which basically is removing some criteria > components, > >> the > >> >> possible combinations increase exponentially. Bulking just > compounds > >> the > >> >> problem > >> >> by adding more matchable/breakable facts into memory. > >> >> > >> >> My bulking logic (I didnt have collect when I started with 3.0) > starts > >> a > >> >> bulk > >> >> looking for two diff objects with the same bulkling criteria (this > is > >> my > >> >> first > >> >> potential cross product since drools would produce C!/N!(C-N)! > >> >> combinations). > >> >> Then once the bulk for a given criteria is create I have a second > rule > >> >> that > >> >> expands or contracts the bulks as new facts are asserted causing > many > >> >> different > >> >> side effects. > >> >> > >> >> What I am basically seeing is that asserting a fact that would for > >> >> instance be a > >> >> perfect match, causes many of the bulking and breaking rule > >> activations > >> >> to > >> >> be > >> >> created and then cancelled. Considering that I am talking about > tens > >> or > >> >> hundreds > >> >> of thousands of facts I thought that if I could stage the > activation > >> >> creations I > >> >> would increase processing speed. > >> >> > >> >> With 15K objects on each side I have been seeing something like 1 > >> >> assertion per > >> >> second. > >> >> > >> >> I am aware that this could be cross product somewhere but I have > >> already > >> >> revised > >> >> the rules many many times so now I am looking for other > alternatives. > >> >> > >> >> I am now trying to understand looking I basically need to find > perfect > >> >> matches > >> >> between two different sets of objects. If perfect matches are not > >> found, > >> >> I > >> >> then > >> >> create bulks of objects that are then used in combination with the > >> >> individual > >> >> one to find bulk matches. If no matches are found I need then to > >> >> categorize the > >> >> breaks (around 10 different categorizations) and report them. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> rules-users mailing list > >> >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > >> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Edson Tirelli > >> > Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer > >> > Office: +55 11 3529-6000 > >> > Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646 > >> > 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/Independent-rule-evaluations-tp12129972p20335308.html > >> 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/Independent-rule-evaluations-tp12129972p20364536.html > 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