You could insert a helper fact and use it as a first pattern in your
conditions. That way, the engine will not evaluate too many patterns from
rules that are not to be executed.
ActiveGroup(name == "GroupA")
* You will have to take care of the status of ActiveGroup and update its
value yourself. Make sure you do it at the appropriate moment. (Low salience
* You would have to re-evaluate the need for the agenda-group. Its
functinos are taken over by the fact, do you still need the group?
* Whether it will improve performance or not is a whole different question
all together and is depending on your ruleset. I never did severe testing on
it, but imho, there are certainly cases where the agenda-group is faster
than the fact. As a rule of thumb, I would say that if you do a lot of
update/modify calls in your consequences, you might get an improvement by
blocking the evaluation of patterns early.
PS You could also create a different fact per agenda-group. It should be
mildly faster while providing quite a lot less flexibility.
View this message in context:
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com