Re: [rules-users] Slow compilation (4h) for a single rule
Thanks for your explanation Edson, it makes sense now I think!
Basically what you are saying is that there is a limit, beyond which is no
longer feasible to use more ORs on a rule.
Edson Tirelli-4 wrote
You are trying to avoid the issue. As reported by others, your
conditions should be inside the patterns, not in "or'd" evals in the end,
and yes, it is possible to generate rules like that in an automated
program.
Sadly I don't see how, as some of my rules have arbitrary arithmetic
involving more than one variable inside the Number(), for more context see
the example I've put on
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/drools-arithmetics-without-eval-td38232....
For this case I think I will try to invert the logic and get rid of the ORs:
not(A or B) => not(A) and not(B).
Best regards,
TL
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Slow-compilation-4h-for-a-single-rule-t...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.