2010/9/24 Leonardo Gomes
<leonardo.f.gomes@gmail.com>
Hello Harshit / Mark,
My reasoning behind the yes, is that:
- If you have 10 rules that won't necessarily always match, it's better to use Rete, than sequentially match one-by-one. The tree structure with the sharing of nodes for different rules seems to always be a better approach for me, than sequentially testing one-by-one and, in some cases, retesting the same condition on different rules (if that happens);
In my use case, the overlap of sub-conditions is not much. There would be only few conditions which will have common sub conditions and the no of sub conditions would be max 5.
After reading the articles, I agree with Leo that still its better to use RETE than sequentially testing one by one.
Also the rules actions won't change the facts/data such that it would require running of the rules again. Hence I came to this conclusion that stateless sessions are required.
I have jotted down the applicable reasons for me to use the rule engine (based on my readings on drools & rete) :
1. separation of business logic from application logic.
2. rules are flexible and likely to be changed overtime.
My requirements would be satisfied by using stateless session functionality of drools.
Questions:
Is there any functionality in drools where I can run the rules in parallel thread to increase the throughput ?
(I can use java threads to run the rules separately in different threads but would like to know if there is any optimization approach in drools for stateless sessions)
- You can write if-then-elses in a imperative language and perform better than Rete, but if your rules are complicated and you have many of them, it's likely that rete can do a better job; Also, if you need to change your rules or add new ones, it will be easier to do that declaratively;
I think here you are suggesting that using a rule engine would be better. (based on ur comments on the need to change rules, add new ones)
I first put the links, because you can use that to judge yourself whether or not you might gain in performance in your own scenarios, with that material.
Thanks Leo. It really helped me to improve my understanding of the algorithm.
@Mark:
In general a stateless session is just a convenience api for
stateful, it just wraps. So no performance gain at all.
I think here you're saying that there will be no performance gain compared to a stateful session, but I believe that the question was more on the lines of "I know that with a stateful it's efficient, how about stateless". I tried to say that, yes, it's also worth using Rete in stateless scenarios.
Mark, I meant the same what Leo explained.
2010/9/24 Mark Proctor
<mproctor@codehaus.org>
It depends :)
In general a stateless session is just a convenience api for
stateful, it just wraps. So no performance gain at all.
There is a "sequential" mode, but in all honest you won't get any
measurable perf gain. So I wouldn't use sequential mode for
performance, the only reason to use it is if you want your rules to
execute sequentially.
Mark
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users