Re: [rules-users] Performace Issues drools

This may no longer be the case, but my understanding is that when you use from to query data from a member list of another object in working memory, that those members are not indexed by Rete. I think every time the rule evaluates, it has to iterate through the entire member list (collection) to find the matching facts that are extracted for additional evaluation. With that said, if you have one rule that extracts the facts, and inserts them into working memory, they will be indexed and now many operations on the fact type will be pre-computed at the time of insert, improving performance dramatically. I don't know if this makes sense, but consider the following: CONDITION: $pt: Patient ( ) LabTest( ) from $pt.labTests $numTests: Number ( ) from accumulate ( LabTest($type: type == "lab"), count($type) ) Drools first collects all the Patient facts and for each Patient it extracts the collections of tests. Now the collection of patients are already known by Rete, so this has been pre-computed at time of fact insert. Next, for each Patient fact, drools extracts the collection of LabTests performed. These are not indexed by Rete to they are not actually in working memory. Each time this rule is evaluated, the collection of LabTests must be generated. Next the accumulate evaluates the LabTest facts to find those that have a getType() == "lab". Since the facts do not exist in working memory, accumulate iterates all the LabTest fact and extracts just the ones where getType == "lab". If the rule file 10 times, that's 10 iterations of the collection. If you break this into two rules: CONDITION: $pt: Patient ( ) $test : LabTest( ) from $pt.labTests CONSEQUENCE Insert($test); CONDITION: $numTests: Number ( ) from accumulate ( LabTest($type: type == "lab"), count($type) ) In this scenario, Drools only extracts the LabTest facts once, and inserts them in working memory, so that when the 2nd rule is evaluated, it is already known which LabTest facts are in memory that exist, and the iteration only happened once, at insert time, instead at every rule evaluation. My understanding may be obsolete, and inaccurate as it applies to Drools 5.4, but this is the type of coding changes I have made in the past to improve performance. The key is knowing how to control the insertion rule, so it does not insert duplicates, or refire unexpectedly. Care must be taken to ensure you are properly binding your facts when you do this though... But the most speed benefit in drools comes from using the rete engine to avoid multiple iterations of the same collection... -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of sanal Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 4:27 AM To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: Re: [rules-users] Performace Issues drools Hi, Still Iam facing some issues with the accumulte.Please see the below senario.I am trying to explain with the below example. Suppose Glucose is a OrderedComponent which is under Labgroup. PackageComponent(Rule) ------------------------------ LABGroup (ComponentKey=100) qtyLimit(2) OrderedComponent ------------------------------- Order1 Glucose (ComponentKey=101) Ordered qty (1) ParentKey(100), ParentKey(4) Order2 Glucose (ComponentKey=101) Ordered qty (1) ParentKey(100) ,ParentKey(4) Order3 Glucose (ComponentKey=101) Ordered qty (1) ParentKey(100), ParentKey(4) Rule execution flow which i require. 1) I need to check any rule exist for Orderedcomponent.If exist Execute the Rule. In this case no rule exist for glucose. 2) If no rule is found for the Orderedcomponent.I need to Check if any rule exist for its parent(group). I am trying to achive this by changing the component key. The component key is changed to that of the parent and the rules are executed once again.This process is contiuned until any rules exist for the group or root parent is reached(tree format). 1st Issue Here parent of glucose is Lab. And Lab has got rule.So the Parent rule of lab should get executed. In this senario only 2 glucose orders should go under package. 3rd one should not go under package. With my existing Drl all the 3 are going inside the package.How can i correct this? 2nd Issue While accumulating with lab group,all ordered items whose parent group is lab should be summed up. The salience is used in such a manner because i need to execute the rules for the services first and later the rules for its parents group. Please find the modified drl as per your suggestion. package com.his.billing.domain; import com.his.clinical.domain.PackageDefinition; import com.his.clinical.domain.PackageComponent; import com.his.billing.domain.OrderedComponent; import com.his.billing.domain.AccumulatedComponent; /*#From row number: 12*/ rule "Check whether is orderedComponent is excluded" salience 7 when $objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent() $orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue) and $pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isExcluded==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null || tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null && tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null || (tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId)),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true) then $orderedComponent.setIsExluded(true); $orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true); end /*#From row number: 21*/ rule "Check whether is orderedComponent quantity limit exceeded" salience 6 when $objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent() $packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId) $orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue) and $accumulatedQty:Number() from accumulate ( $accQtyComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId, $AccQty : componentQty) from $objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($AccQty ) ) and $pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,(quantityLmt == 0 || quantityLmt != null || quantityLmt <($qty+$accumulatedQty.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null || tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null && tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null || (tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId))) then $orderedComponent.setIsQtyExceeded(true); $orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true); end /*#From row number: 21*/ rule "Check whether is orderedComponent Amount limit exceeded" salience 5 when $objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent() $packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId) $orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue) and $accumulatedAmount:Number() from accumulate ( $accAmtComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,$accAmount:componentAmt) from $objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($accAmount ) ) and $pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,( amountLmt == 0 || amountLmt == null || amountLmt <($amount+$accumulatedAmount.intValue())),isPackageComponent==true,isActive==true,(tariffClassTypeValue==null || tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null && tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null || (tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId))) then $orderedComponent.setIsAmtExceeded(true); $orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true); end /*#From row number: 22*/ rule "Check whether is orderedComponent is exempted" salience 4 when $objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent() $orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey) $pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isPackageComponent==true,exemption==true,isActive==true) then $orderedComponent.setExemption(true); $orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true); end /*#From row number: 21*/ rule "Check whether orderedComponent satisfy all rules.Then assign package id" salience 3 when $objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent() $packageDefinition:PackageDefinition($packageId:packageId) $orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,packageChargeRecordId!=$packageId,$amount:componentAmt,$qty:componentQty,$orderTariffClassType:tariffClassType,$orderTariffClassId:tariffClassValue) and $accumulatedAmount:Number() from accumulate ( $accAmtComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId,$accAmount:componentAmt) from $objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($accAmount ) ) and $accumulatedQty:Number() from accumulate ( $accQtyComponent:OrderedComponent(packageChargeRecordId==$packageId, $AccQty : componentQty) from $objOrderedComponents.getOrderedComponentList(),sum($AccQty ) ) and $pkgComps:PackageComponent(componentKey==$id1,isExcluded==false,(amountLmt == 0 || amountLmt == null || amountLmt ==null || quantityLmt || tariffClassTypeValue=="" || (tariffClassTypeValue!=null && tariffClassTypeValue == $orderTariffClassType)),(tariffClassValue==null || (tariffClassValue!=null && tariffClassValue==$orderTariffClassId))) from $packageDefinition.getPackageComponentList() then $orderedComponent.setIsComponentApplicable(true); $orderedComponent.setPackageChargeRecordId($packageId); $orderedComponent.setIsPackageComponent(true); modify($orderedComponent){}; modify($objOrderedComponents){}; end /*#From row number: 22*/ rule "If no rule exist for orderedComponent Check whether orderedComponent is a pharmacy item then assign its generic naame and then apply the rules" salience 2 when $objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent() $orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,isPackageComponent==false,componentType=="1052374",haveReachedRootNode==false) then $orderedComponent.setGenericComponentKey(); modify($orderedComponent){}; modify($objOrderedComponents){}; end /*#From row number: 22*/ rule "If no rule exist for orderedComponent Check whether rule exist for its parent group" salience 1 when $objOrderedComponents:AccumulatedComponent() $orderedComponent:OrderedComponent($id1:componentKey,isPackageComponent==false,haveReachedRootNode==false) then $orderedComponent.setGroupComponentKey(); modify($orderedComponent){}; modify($objOrderedComponents){}; end Regards Sanal.P -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Performace-Issues-drools-tp3902270p3916... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users