Re: [rules-users] Too many ACTIVATION "candidates"

-----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users- bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of rouvas(a)di.uoa.gr Sent: 22 December 2010 17:05 To: Wolfgang Laun Cc: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Too many ACTIVATION "candidates" Wolfgang Laun wrote: > Are the constraints c99999 == "R" true for all Facts of type > fact1,...fact5? > Is this actually the only constraint? For the example rule I have posted, this is the only constraint. The equality test for "R", in that case does not really prune the facts a lot. The numbers I have posted are roughly correct. > > The not doesn't really reduce the network since it is the last pattern. Indeed. I have found this to be true the hard way! > > I'll wait for your answer before proposing a solution. Please, take into consideration the general case for this kind of problem. I know that the particular rule I have posted can be re-written as a series of 5 rules that each one test for a single fact. I have done so for this particular rule and there was no issue getting a result. The problem is, that I do not have direct control over the rules, the users write them (through a custom interface). So I am actually wondering if there is a way to foresee these kinds of problems without actually executing the rules. Thank you for your time, -Stathis > > -W > > > > On 22 December 2010 15:34, <rouvas(a)di.uoa.gr&gt; wrote: > >> Hello List, >> >> Issue: Too many ACTIVATION "candidates" >> >> Sorry for the terminology, I'm sure it is not correct. >> >> Background Information: >> - Drools.5.0.1 >> - using StatefulKnowledgeSession >> - logging through KnowledgeRuntimeLoggerFactory.newConsoleLogger() >> - after each session creation, rules are inserted from a DRL file, >> facts are inserted and ksession.fireAllRules() is executed >> - str[contains] and str[bidicontains] are custom operators implemented >> by >> me >> >> If I understand Drools modus operandi correctly, as each fact is >> inserted >> the list of candidate "nodes" to fire are constructed. Upon >> fireAllRules(), a selection mechanism selects a candidate "node" to fire >> and things start >> rolling. >> >> In my case, the rule at the end results in too many candidate "nodes" >> created during facts insertion mode. If the rule ever gets to fire, only >> one will remain since the not codition in the LHS and the logicalInserts >> in the RHS exclude two firings of the rule (I hope). >> >> fact1 has about 90 entries. >> fact2 has about 25 entries. >> fact3 has about 350 entries. >> fact4 has about 150 entries. >> fact5 has about 250 entries. >> >> So I'm guessing that 90*25*350*150*250=29.531.250.000, i.e. 29 billion >> candidate "nodes" would be created. Of course, I'm having OME long >> before >> that! >> >> If my analysis is correct, is any way that I could either: >> >> a) detect that kind of combinatorial explosion during runtime (maybe a >> kind of dry-run) and act accordingly >> >> or >> >> b) set any kind of upper limit for candidate "nodes" creation and stop >> further execution thus avoiding to bring down the server along the >> way... >> >> rule "r21767.2" >> dialect "mvel" >> when >> gnId : GoodNumbers() >> v1 : fact1( c21658 == "R" ) >> v2 : fact2( c21727 == "R" ) >> v3 : fact3( c21723 == "R" ) >> v4 : fact4( c21616 == "R" ) >> v5 : fact5( c21731 == "R" ) >> v6 : GoodsItems( gnId.goodNo==goodNo , >> goodsDescr str[bidicontains] v5.c21733 || >> goodsDescr str[bidicontains] v5.c21732 || >> goodsDescr str[bidicontains] v4.c21617 || >> goodsDescr str[bidicontains] v4.c21619 || >> goodsDescr str[bidicontains] v3.c21724 || >> goodsDescr str[bidicontains] v2.c21726 || >> goodsDescr str[bidicontains] v1.c21656 || >> goodsDescr str[bidicontains] v1.c21657 || >> goodsUnDangCode str[contains] v1.c21659 || >> goodsUnDangCode str[contains] v2.c21728 || >> goodsUnDangCode str[contains] v4.c21618 || >> goodsUnDangCode str[contains] v5.c21735 || >> combinedNome str[bidicontains] v1.c21655 || >> combinedNome str[bidicontains] v2.c21729 || >> combinedNome str[bidicontains] v4.c21615 || >> combinedNome str[bidicontains] v5.c21734 >> ) >> not mm : Marker ( mm.entityId==v6.entityID, >> mm.markAs=="19") >> then >> modify ( v6 ) { >> setMarkAs("1") >> } >> Marker m1 = new Marker(); >> m1.setEntityId(v6.entityID); >> m1.setMarkAs("19"); >> insertLogical(m1); >> end >> >> Thank you very much for your time, >> -Stathis >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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