Re: [rules-users] Bulk-Retract speed conundrum

Hi Edson, Wolfgang, Sorry, I don't think my previous mail posted, sorry if it did. Thanks for your suggestions. They were very helpful, and I managed to drop it down to 130ms, and I can see that if I get Wolfgang's suggestion right, it will jump down to under 80! The changes I made, which decreased run time by 200ms were: -The superfluous last condition (with the collect(...)) is only relevant when the variable is non-zero, so I've changed the values in the rule template from 0 to blank, and used the commenting trick to blank out those lines when the condition is irrelevant. -Putting the check for type before the check for code. -The inline eval did not improve speed, in fact, it decreased the speed slightly. -disposing the session instead of retracting ... and now I am looking for a way to conditionally show the =>/=< vs. == when it is appropriate. It does not appear that there is an easy way to do this, with rule templates. regards, Daniel -- View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Bulk-Retract-speed-co... Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.