[rules-users] Optimization Problem - fat expressions vs ceating additional objects
I have a rule:
SOLUTION 1
===========
when
cntct: Contact(initialized==true)
rel: Relation(contact==cntct, active:active == $1)
then
…
end
For this to run, it requires the "Relation" object asserted into working
memory;
so I'd have to forcefully assert (Relation object with active = false), even if
no relation exists.
An alternative solution is to write the rule like this:
SOLUTION 2
==========
when
cntct: Contact(initialized==true)
rel: Relation(contact==cntct, active:active == $1
or (eval(false==false) and not relation())
then
…
end
#Note: The eval is for decision table since the same cell can be true or false,
and this part of condition should be active only when the cell = false.
Now, Soltuion 2 is a better way to represent the functionlaity and also saved
creation of addtional/redundant objects but introduces an eval() and a not.
From a perfromance perspective, which solution is more optimized?
If it helps, imagine this used for millions of facts.
At a more granular level, does a Java New() cost more than an eval(false==false)
<-- trivial comparion, but uses the forbidden eval() and then a 'not'
please let me know your views!
Thanks,
Arjun