11:06 p.m.
Hi,
According to my understanding of Drools Flow, when you insert an object into
drools, it tries to match it against all the existing rules and every rule,
for which the 'When' clause conditions are met, becomes activated.
I was wondering if it was possible, that when an object is inserted into
drools, drools stops trying to match that object against the rules once the
first rule is activated. Or in other words, drools would go through the list
of rules comparing the object with the 'When' clause conditions and then
when it finds a rule that matches, it stops going through the rest of the
rules for that object.
Thanks!
Kevin
--
View this message in context:
http://n3.nabble.com/Drools-Flow-Skipping-some-LHS-evaluations-at-time-of...
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
11:18 p.m.
you can insert a control object in the first rule that it's activated and
fired and add another restriction to the rest of the rules, using that
control object.
Greetings
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:06 PM, madchen <k.cheung(a)accenture.com> wrote:
Hi,
According to my understanding of Drools Flow, when you insert an object
into
drools, it tries to match it against all the existing rules and every rule,
for which the 'When' clause conditions are met, becomes activated.
I was wondering if it was possible, that when an object is inserted into
drools, drools stops trying to match that object against the rules once the
first rule is activated. Or in other words, drools would go through the
list
of rules comparing the object with the 'When' clause conditions and then
when it finds a rule that matches, it stops going through the rest of the
rules for that object.
Thanks!
Kevin
--
View this message in context:
http://n3.nabble.com/Drools-Flow-Skipping-some-LHS-evaluations-at-time-of...
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
- http://salaboy.wordpress.com
- http://www.jbug.com.ar
- Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
5:24 p.m.
Okay so correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're suggesting is something like
this:
rule "1"
when
$v :variable(blah = "matches")
$co : controlObject
then
System.out.println("Yay it matched")
$co.setDoneTrue
end
rule "2"
when
$v2 :variableTwo(blah = "matches")
$co : controlObject(done != True)
then
//do some stuff
end
So basically, when the first rule activates and fires, it sets the
controlObject.done to true and then the second rule will not fire because
done is true. In this case, it seems that drools will run through the tests
for each rule and match it against the control object.
Basically, I'm looking to improve the performance of Drools and in my case,
if it matches one rule, then there would be no reason to check the other
ones. Therefore, I'm trying to not have drools check every rule against
every object.
--
View this message in context:
http://n3.nabble.com/Drools-Flow-Skipping-some-LHS-evaluations-at-time-of...
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
5:57 p.m.
New subject: Drools Flow: Skipping some LHS evaluations attime of insert
If the aim is purely optimization then in that case it won't work (even ignoring the
fact you haven't told drools you are updating $co).
Activations are evaluated first then rules are fired. If an activation updates an object
then activations are recalculated.
Are you actually having performance problems with drools or are you trying to optimize
prematurely?
You seem to be under a misconception of how drools works if you are worried about it
trying to match every rule against every object and probably need to read up about the
Rete algorithms and how drools implements it. http://blog.athico.com/ is a good place to
start searching through for information and if you want really detailed information and
advice read chapter 12 of the book "Drools JBoss rules 5.0 developer's
guide".
Thomas
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-
bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of madchen
Sent: 08 April 2010 16:25
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Drools Flow: Skipping some LHS evaluations attime
of insert
Okay so correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're suggesting is something like
this:
rule "1"
when
$v :variable(blah = "matches")
$co : controlObject
then
System.out.println("Yay it matched")
$co.setDoneTrue
end
rule "2"
when
$v2 :variableTwo(blah = "matches")
$co : controlObject(done != True)
then
//do some stuff
end
So basically, when the first rule activates and fires, it sets the
controlObject.done to true and then the second rule will not fire because
done is true. In this case, it seems that drools will run through the tests
for each rule and match it against the control object.
Basically, I'm looking to improve the performance of Drools and in my case,
if it matches one rule, then there would be no reason to check the other
ones. Therefore, I'm trying to not have drools check every rule against
every object.
--
View this message in context: http://n3.nabble.com/Drools-Flow-Skipping-some-
LHS-evaluations-at-time-of-insert-tp704324p706256.html
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
**************************************************************************************
This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you have received
this message in error, please immediately notify the postmaster(a)nds.com and delete it from
your system as well as any copies. The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be
monitored by NDS for employment and security purposes. To protect the environment please
do not print this e-mail unless necessary.
NDS Limited. Registered Office: One London Road, Staines, Middlesex, TW18 4EX, United
Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales. Registered no. 3080780. VAT no. GB 603
8808 40-00
**************************************************************************************
This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you have received
this message in error, please immediately notify the postmaster(a)nds.com and delete it from
your system as well as any copies. The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be
monitored by NDS for employment and security purposes.
To protect the environment please do not print this e-mail unless necessary.
An NDS Group Limited company. www.nds.com
10:24 p.m.
New subject: Drools Flow: Skipping some LHS evaluations attime of insert
Okay cool, thanks for the advice. I think I have a much better idea of how
the algorithm behind drools works now. So if I understand it right, the Rete
Algorithm operates on pattern matching and nodes. Basically, Drools will
create a node for every object inserted that is checked against a rule. If
multiple objects of the same type are inserted, they can just share the same
node. Also Drools keeps a hash table of comparisons of specific object
elements so that if you had something like rule 1 activates when
account.type = checking and rule 2 activates when account.type = savings,
the fact would only propogate through relevant nodes. In that sense, Drools
tries to match every inserted object against every rule, but it caches a lot
of results of evaluations.
Therefore, if you insert a lot of the same object into Drools, the runtime
will not increase that much since the nodes will already have been created
and there will be a lot of node sharing. Also the evaluations will be cached
for quick access.
To answer your question, I used JunitPerf to do some preliminary testing on
drools and I wanted to see if I could optimize it in any way.
--
View this message in context:
http://n3.nabble.com/Drools-Flow-Skipping-some-LHS-evaluations-at-time-of...
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
11:06 p.m.
New subject: Drools Flow: Skipping some LHS evaluations attime of insert
And make sure and look at Sequential Mode when you read the docs. (Section 3.3.7.1 in the
Drools Expert docs.) Possibly that is what you're looking for.
--- On Thu, 4/8/10, Swindells, Thomas <TSwindells(a)nds.com> wrote:
From: Swindells, Thomas <TSwindells(a)nds.com>
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Drools Flow: Skipping some LHS evaluations attime of insert
To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Date: Thursday, April 8, 2010, 10:57 AM
If the aim is purely optimization
then in that case it won't work (even ignoring the fact you
haven't told drools you are updating $co).
Activations are evaluated first then rules are fired.
If an activation updates an object then activations are
recalculated.
Are you actually having performance problems with drools or
are you trying to optimize prematurely?
You seem to be under a misconception of how drools
works if you are worried about it trying to match every rule
against every object and probably need to read up about the
Rete algorithms and how drools implements it. http://blog.athico.com/ is a good place to
start
searching through for information and if you want really
detailed information and advice read chapter 12 of the book
"Drools JBoss rules 5.0 developer's guide".
Thomas
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-
> bounces(a)lists.jboss.org]
On Behalf Of madchen
> Sent: 08 April 2010 16:25
> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Drools Flow: Skipping some
LHS evaluations attime
> of insert
>
>
> Okay so correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're
suggesting is something like
> this:
>
> rule "1"
> when
>
$v :variable(blah = "matches")
>
$co : controlObject
> then
>
System.out.println("Yay it matched")
>
$co.setDoneTrue
> end
>
> rule "2"
> when
>
$v2 :variableTwo(blah = "matches")
>
$co : controlObject(done != True)
> then
>
//do some stuff
> end
>
> So basically, when the first rule activates and fires,
it sets the
> controlObject.done to true and then the second rule
will not fire because
> done is true. In this case, it seems that drools will
run through the tests
> for each rule and match it against the control
object.
>
> Basically, I'm looking to improve the performance of
Drools and in my case,
> if it matches one rule, then there would be no reason
to check the other
> ones. Therefore, I'm trying to not have drools check
every rule against
> every object.
> --
> View this message in context: http://n3.nabble.com/Drools-Flow-Skipping-some-
>
LHS-evaluations-at-time-of-insert-tp704324p706256.html
> Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
**************************************************************************************
This message is confidential and intended only for the
addressee. If you have received this message in error,
please immediately notify the postmaster(a)nds.com
and delete it from your system as well as any copies. The
content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored
by NDS for employment and security purposes. To protect the
environment please do not print this e-mail unless
necessary.
NDS Limited. Registered Office: One London Road, Staines,
Middlesex, TW18 4EX, United Kingdom. A company registered in
England and Wales. Registered no. 3080780. VAT no. GB 603
8808 40-00
**************************************************************************************
This message is confidential and intended only for the
addressee. If you have received this message in error,
please immediately notify the postmaster(a)nds.com
and delete it from your system as well as any copies. The
content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored
by NDS for employment and security purposes.
To protect the environment please do not print this e-mail
unless necessary.
An NDS Group Limited company. www.nds.com
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
3:53 p.m.
New subject: Drools Flow: Skipping some LHS evaluations attime of insert
Another alternative would be to use an activation group, that way only one rule of that
group will be able to fire.
Kris
----- Original Message -----
From: Mauricio Salatino
To: Rules Users List
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Drools Flow: Skipping some LHS evaluations attime of insert
you can insert a control object in the first rule that it's activated and fired and
add another restriction to the rest of the rules, using that control object.
Greetings
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:06 PM, madchen <k.cheung(a)accenture.com> wrote:
Hi,
According to my understanding of Drools Flow, when you insert an object into
drools, it tries to match it against all the existing rules and every rule,
for which the 'When' clause conditions are met, becomes activated.
I was wondering if it was possible, that when an object is inserted into
drools, drools stops trying to match that object against the rules once the
first rule is activated. Or in other words, drools would go through the list
of rules comparing the object with the 'When' clause conditions and then
when it finds a rule that matches, it stops going through the rest of the
rules for that object.
Thanks!
Kevin
--
View this message in context:
http://n3.nabble.com/Drools-Flow-Skipping-some-LHS-evaluations-at-time-of...
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
- http://salaboy.wordpress.com
- http://www.jbug.com.ar
- Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
5134
days inactive
5139
days old
6 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Greg Barton -
Kris Verlaenen -
madchen -
Mauricio Salatino -
Swindells, Thomas