Re: [rules-users] [planner] Performance question

** Op 19-10-11 15:00, Guilherme Kunigami schreef: > In this use case, that is probably a bad idea in my experience. Why? Well > I hope this makes any sense: > *You need to allow the optimization algorithms to break it now and then > to tunnel through a bad search space into another good search space.* > If it doesn't, don't worry. > Hmm, I think I understood it. Allowing infeasible solutions may help to scape from local minima in the space of feasible solutions for example. Yep :) rule "Avoid conflicting activities" > when > Assignment($room1 : room, $act1: activity, $id : activity.id) > Assignment(room== $room1, room != null, $act2 : activity, activity.id > > $id) > Conflict(act1 == $act1, act2 == $act2) > > I would put Conflict first. But try it this way too and let me know which > works better ;) I don't know. > Stated differently: Instead of checking every 2 simultaneous assignments > if they are a conflict, > I would check if every 2 conflict assignments are simultaneous (like in > examinationScoreRules.drl). > > Ok! I will perform some stress tests to verify which one works better. Nice, please report your results to this mailing list. It doesn't matter if they are worse, better or equal: it's interesting to know. Look for "stepLimit" in the examples to see how I do very short stress tests when adding extra constraints.

_______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users