Re: [rules-users] Performace Issues drools

From: Welsh, Armand <AWelsh(a)statestreet.com&gt; Subject: Re: [rules-users] Performace Issues drools To: "'Rules Users List'" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Date: Monday, April 23, 2012, 11:13 AM I don't know your data model, but I believe, what you may be looking for is; CONDITION:     $pt: Patient ( )     $test : LabTest( ) from $pt.labTests     not (exists (LabTest (testId == $test.testId))) CONSEQUENCE     Insert($test); If I am recalling this correctly, line2 does not inject anything into working memory yet, and the only reference in memory to the collection of tests for the patent is $test.  Whereas Line 3 uses the Rete indexed items that were inserted into working memory, so what you are effectively doing, is blocking the fact from being inserted twice, because one it is inserted, it is indexed, and associated with the rules where it is uses, and since this rule states it must not exist, this rule cannot fire again, since it can only be activated when there is no matching labTest. However, the test should not be inserted more than once, because it should only fire for changes, not the whole list every time.  To trigger a change on the original version of the rule, you would have to change the Patient record to trigger a reactivation of the rule. In this modified version of the rule, any change to LabTest or Patient would trigger a reactivation of the rule, so the original version may be the better rule, since it involves less work to evaluate the activation triggers (only slightly, but less is less). -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Loaiza Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 4:59 AM To: Rules Users List Cc: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: Re: [rules-users] Performace Issues drools I want implement this.  How would you control the insertion rule in order to avoid having it insert duplicates or re-fire? Thanks On Apr 19, 2012, at 10:56 AM, "Welsh, Armand" <AWelsh(a)statestreet.com&gt; wrote: > 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 >> =($amount+$accumulatedAmount.intValue())),( 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))) 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 > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users