Re: [rules-users] Slow compilation (4h) for a single rule
A last effort from my side.
Given any number of bound variables a, b, c: to determine whether an
arbitrary boolean expression involving arithmetic and comparison
operators, a single eval() is sufficient and preferable to a CE
combination involving the CE operators "and", "or", "not"
combining
many evals.
Instead of
not( eval( a == 1 ) )
use
eval( ! (a == 1) ) // or better
eval( a != 0 )
Instead of
eval( a == 1 ) or eval( b == 1 )
use
eval( a == 1 || b == 1 )
Instead of
eval( a == 1 ) and eval( b == 1 )
use
eval( a == 1 && b == 1 )
-W
On 25/07/2012, fx242 <drools(a)fx242.com> wrote:
Thanks for your explanation Edson, it makes sense now I think!
Basically what you are saying is that there is a limit, beyond which is no
longer feasible to use more ORs on a rule.
Edson Tirelli-4 wrote
>
> You are trying to avoid the issue. As reported by others, your
> conditions should be inside the patterns, not in "or'd" evals in the
end,
> and yes, it is possible to generate rules like that in an automated
> program.
>
Sadly I don't see how, as some of my rules have arbitrary arithmetic
involving more than one variable inside the Number(), for more context see
the example I've put on
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/drools-arithmetics-without-eval-td38232....
For this case I think I will try to invert the logic and get rid of the
ORs:
not(A or B) => not(A) and not(B).
Best regards,
TL
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Slow-compilation-4h-for-a-single-rule-t...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users