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.