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

Hi Edson, Thanks for your suggestions. They were very helpful, and I managed to drop it down to 130ms. The changes I made 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 So, the rule now looks so: rule "RULE_2090" when $cl: ClaimLine(historic == false, type == "T", code == 000000003908) $historic: ClaimLine(historic == true, type == "P", code >= 000000000052 && <= 000000000052, $dt : date) eval(Utilities.isWithinTimePeriod($dt, $cl.date, "Y", "99")) then String ruleName = drools.getRule().getName(); results.addMessage(ruleName, "000000003908","Only 1 test per day "); results.setRefer("R"); end My boss is however, pushing to perhaps find the last trick in the bag. I'm hoping there is still something I have overlooked. (@Wolfgang) - since its a rule template, i'm not aware of any tricks to conditionally show the =</>= vs. == depending on whether the values are the same. I suppose I could make two templates, and pre-process the result sets to differentiate between the two. Is there there an easier way? It seems a bit arbitrary to partition in that manner. -- 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.