Re: [rules-users] Pattern aggregation

What do you guys think of this: my facts are all the same type, so I didn't have anything like a consumer object to break things down with. But what I did was: rule "group 1" when   $a : Trans( $groupValue : prodCat, $date : date )   not Trans( this != $a, prodCat == $groupValue, date < $date )   $b : LinkedList( size >= 1 ) from collect ( Trans( this != $a, prodCat == $groupValue, date > $date ) ) then   //do something end This is quite quick. The rule grabs all the Trans objects that have the same prodCat, in a single firing, without the need to iteractively retract things or fire multiple times for the same group value. As the first condition only matches a single fact (the one with the oldest date), there is only ever a single permutation that can fulfill the conditions. This is only aggregating on a single attribute, but the principal should work with more. On 18 October 2010 16:12, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > Doing s.th. like >   $t1 : Trans( $id : id, $pc : pc, $tt : tt ) >   $t2 : Trans( this != $t1, id == $id, pc == $pc, tt < ($tt + 3600) ) > is bound to produce poor performanc. > > Divide and conquer! > > You might start with a Consumer record >   Consumer( $id : id ) >   $t1 : Trans( id == $id: , $pc : pc, $tt : tt ) >   $t2 : Trans( this != $t1, id == $id, pc == $pc, tt < ($tt + 3600) ) > > You might run an (external) sort on the Transaction records and > process it in batches of identical id+pc. > > If transaction times don't go around the clock, you might sort by > date, and process day by day. > > You may have to create a Domain Specific Language for the > non-programmers, putting a firm rein on how they combine the basic > facts. Processing large batches is bound to require skills they just > dont have. > > -W > > > On 18 October 2010 16:14, Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: > > It would be nice if we had an example of some rules.  That way we can > > rule out obvious performance killers like cartesian products and multiple > > "from" clauses in one rule. > > > > GreG > > > > On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:19, Tim 4076 <tm4076(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I'm trying to use drools to do grouping of data according to patterns > > defined in my rules, but I'm having issues creating something that works in > > a reasonable amount of time (seconds). I've tried all sorts of permutations > > without much luck and would like to hear how others would do the same thing. > > > > To give an example: I've got a big batch of transaction records and I > > want to aggregate all the records where the consumer id and product category > > are the same and the purchases were made within an hour of each other. > > > > The fact that its matching the same values between facts, rather than > > against constants seems to scupper it somewhat. > > > > I would go down the ETL route, but the idea is for non-techies to define > > their own aggregations using rules. > > > > -Cheers. Tim > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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