[rules-users] Re: Independent rule evaluations
Edson Tirelli <tirelli <at> post.com> writes:
Yuri, Right now, the only way is to work with different rule
bases and
working memories. Even using agenda-groups or rule-flow, rules are still
being
eagerly evaluated, as this is how standard Rete works.
The problem of creating and canceling too many activations is a
known
problem and the only way around it right now is sequential mode, but
sequential
mode has some restrictions on what you can do. For instance, you must work with
a stateless working memory and can not modify/retract facts in your rules to
work with sequential mode, but it will give you big performance boosts.
We are evaluating the possibility of creating physical network
partitions
for next version, but that will require some R&D yet. []s
Edson
Edson, thanks for the explanation!
At this point we are considering a scheme to create additional working memories
and have a way to propagate inserts/updates/retracts selectively.
Is my assumption correct that if I make sure a "barrier" column/constrains sits
at the top of the rete network that I could delay the insertion of the
"barrier"
and achieve what I am looking for without having to split the working memories?