Re: [rules-users] Poor performance from a simple join

Oops... This e-mail went out too quickly. There are 8M BINNING_INPUT facts that will eventually be reasoned upon... But only 10k at a time. In other words, the matrix of BINNING_INPUT x LU_DEVICE_TYPE should be about 10k x 10k Dave From: David Martin <david.martin@mercedsystems.com<mailto:david.martin@mercedsystems.com>> Reply-To: Rules Users List <rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:23:21 +0000 To: "rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>" <rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>> Subject: [rules-users] Poor performance from a simple join Folks: My co-workers and I have been using Drools to great success, but we ran smack into a performance brick wall recently. In the example below, both BINNING_INPUT and LU_DEVICE_TYPE have large numbers of associated facts in working memory (BINNING_INPUT has more than 8 million facts in working memory, LU_DEVICE_TYPE about 10k.) LU_DEVICE_TYPE models a lookup table. rule "Binning for Attribute: Device_type_desc" when $call : BINNING_INPUT() $device_typeLookup : LU_DEVICE_TYPE( $call.device_type == device_type ) then $call.setDevice_type_desc($device_typeLookup.getDevice_type_desc()); end It's a simple enough rule: join on the device_type field. Unfortunately, this rule and a few others like it are taking FOREVER to insert. Even when I cut the number of BINNING_INPUT facts in working memory down from 8M to 10k. This feels like a basic Drools question. But I can't seem to find any help from google. Please advise! Thanks in advance, Dave Martin _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users