Re: [rules-users] [planner] Performance question

In this use case, that is probably a bad idea in my experience. Why? Well I hope this makes any sense: /You need to allow the optimization algorithms to break it now and then to tunnel through a bad search space into another good search space./ If it doesn't, don't worry. Hmm, I think I understood it. Allowing infeasible solutions may help to scape from local minima in the space of feasible solutions for example.

> rule "Avoid conflicting activities" > when > Assignment($room1 : room, $act1: activity, $id : activity.id > <http://activity.id/>) > Assignment(room== $room1, room != null, $act2 : activity, > activity.id <http://activity.id/> > $id) > Conflict(act1 == $act1, act2 == $act2) I would put Conflict first. But try it this way too and let me know which works better ;) I don't know. Stated differently: Instead of checking every 2 simultaneous assignments if they are a conflict, I would check if every 2 conflict assignments are simultaneous (like in examinationScoreRules.drl). Ok! I will perform some stress tests to verify which one works better.