On 30 January 2012 17:18, Philipp Herzig <pherzig@googlemail.com> wrote:
Thanks Wolfgang for your reply.

doSomething simply persists something with JPA, no events are
retracted or updated. The behavior does also not change when there is
a simple println in the then clause.

OK.

 
I thought events are automatically retracted once no rule applied
anymore.  The EventObject class with the map is used only for
abstraction within the architecture (actually a property pattern). No
intention to speed up something.

There's no information in the (only) rule that would permit an automatic retraction.
Mostly this is possible when temporal operators are used.

Searching for EventObject/create without matching EventObject/delete is
causing a lot of work, since each insertion requires an exhaustive linear
search for the absence of a delete or the presence of a create.

What do you call after the bunch insert? fireAllRules() ?

-W


As I said, the activation firing works fine when no timer is present
and, of course, deletes are already inserted before the creates,
otherwise the rule won't fire.

Do you know how the Scheduler works? According to the observed
behavior I would guess that there is a background job invoked every
100ms checking if there are timer delayed activations which has to be
fired.
If this is the case, I wonder why only some activations are fired and
not all. Due to the upper time bound?

Thanks again,

Philipp


2012/1/30 Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun@gmail.com>:
> Does the doSomething() update or retract any EventObject facts and notify
> the Drools engine accordingly?
>
> (So far: Neither using the same class for the "create" and the "delete"
> events nor
> using a map (i.e., "data") for all properties is helping w.r.t. speed.)
>
> -W
>
>
> On 30 January 2012 15:07, Philipp Herzig <pherzig@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sure, here it is. Sorry for any inconvienience!
>>
>> rule "new_intent"
>> timer (20s)
>> when
>>      $evt : EventObject(data['type']=='create') from entry-point
>> eventstream
>>      not ( EventObject(data['type']=='delete',
>> data['mrid']==$evt.data['mrid'], data['userid']==$evt.data['userid'])
>> from entry-point eventstream)
>> then
>>  SomeAPI.getInstance().doSomething();
>> end
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Philipp
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/1/30 Michael Anstis <michael.anstis@gmail.com>
>> >
>> > It's going to help (probably) if you include the definition of your rule
>> > (or rules).
>> >
>> > 2012/1/30 Philipp Herzig <pherzig@googlemail.com>
>> >>
>> >> Dear Community,
>> >>
>> >> Drools is pretty fast regarding all my use cases. However, today I have
>> >> found a problem where I cannot find any solution. Hopefully someone of you
>> >> can help.
>> >>
>> >> 1. I have a rule with a @timer(10s) attribute (should be 24h later on
>> >> but doesn't matter). This rule is activated when a "create" event occurs and
>> >> invalidated once a "delete" event occurs within the timeframe of @timer.
>> >>
>> >> 2. I have approx. 9000 "create" events which are bulk loaded into the
>> >> working memory and creating activations for the rule above.
>> >>
>> >> 3. I have approx. 2000 "delete" events which are bulk loaded into my
>> >> entry-point cancelling the respective activations from step (2)
>> >>
>> >> 4. After the timer expired, the first activation is fired correctly.
>> >> However, all other activations are fired with some noticeable delay
>> >> (actually it needs 20-30minutes until all activations are fired).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Do you have an idea what the problem with the timer might be?
>> >> Unfortunately, I have neither an idea how the scheduler in the background
>> >> works nor which class I should start looking at.
>> >>
>> >> BTW: For testing purpose I switched step (2) & (3), that is, "delete"
>> >> events are inserted before the "create" events and removed the timer
>> >> attribute which is obviously the same logic. It performs lightning fast in
>> >> this case... (all remaining activations are fired within 5
>> >> seconds). However, insertinging my "delete" events before the "create"
>> >> events is ok for testing but not feasible in practice.
>> >>
>> >> It would be great if some of you has an idea or point to start within
>> >> the code.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks in advance,
>> >>
>> >> Philipp
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> rules-users mailing list
>> >> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
>> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rules-users mailing list
>> > rules-users@lists.jboss.org
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------
>> Philipp Herzig, M.Sc.
>>
>> Mail: pherzig@googlemail.com
>> Cell: 0178 - 6156244
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>



--
--------------------------------------------
Philipp Herzig, M.Sc.

Mail: pherzig@googlemail.com
Cell: 0178 - 6156244

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users