Yuri,
Not is a simple and cheap CE to use. In a simple analysis, the cost of
NOT CE is even lower than a JOIN, since it will try joins, but will
propagate a single tuple. So, go ahead, your second approach is the best way
to go.
[]s
Edson
2007/7/23, Yuri de Wit <ydewit(a)gmail.com>:
I am working on a drools application with few rules and large number
of facts. In my first design I tried to avoid excessive joins thinking
I was helping improve performance but didnt realized that I was
actually shooting myself in the foot. I was basically creating a
single facade-fact that would contain two or three diff concerns
joined under the same interface. The problem I am seeing is that for
simple things like changing the status of one of many facts would
cause that fact to be reevaluated against all the other facts.
I then realized that thinking relationally about the problem would not
only simplify my solution but also probably make a lot faster.
However, in this new and relational solution I will need to make use
of many "not" CE.
My question is: is there any cost in using "not"s that I should be
awae of? Any other words of wisdom re: improving the performance in
small rules x many facts?
thanks,
-- yuri
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3529-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @
www.jboss.com