7:01 p.m.
Hi,
We have a product using weblogic server & weblogic rules.
We are planning to move our application to jboss As using drool rules.
Brief intro of our rules:
Currently we have around 20K rules in our databse. We load all those rules
form our database in to weblogic Rule Manger. All those rules loaded in to
Rule manger with rule ID as key & Rule Data as values. we can simply add
new ruels on run time we can remove any rule form RuleMnager at runtime.
Then we have catalogs in out databse pointing those rules.
So whenever user inputs some data & ask to evaluate that data with some
catalog.
Then we simply add user data in WM & get rules from Rule manager one by one
& evaliate the rule on the basisi of WM. In the end we send the
alerts/result to user.
My questions:
i) Is there a rule manger Api in drools to whoch we provide rule Id along
with rule data to load rules in memory.
& we can remove & add furtgur rules in to it.
Also how effecient is it to load & evaluate more than 20K rules.
ii) I don't find RuleSet in ApI, whats the replacement of it?
iii) Any link having good example to load rules & then evaluate a set from
this a caalog type of case.
I hope your precious answers will help us a lot to make the decision.
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://n3.nabble.com/Weblogic-rules-to-Drools-rules-tp126265p126265.html
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
8:40 p.m.
Start here:
http://www.jboss.org/drools/documentation.html
The Drools Expert docs have examples on Chapter 8.
Your questions:
i) Check the docs above and the drools-api javadocs. Basically you have your
rules stored wherever you want and "load" them using a KnowledgeBuilder. The
KnowledgeBuilder gives you Packages of rules, based on the namespace
(package name) that you defined in each rules
"file"/"resource"/"string"
(whatever you are using). Then you can add these packages to the
KnowledgeBase. Then you can create sessions from the KnowledgeBase to
execute your rules against facts. Yes, you can add/remove rules to/from the
KnowledgeBase dynamically, even if there are sessions already created and
populated with data. 20k rules might take some time to load, but you will
have to check that by yourself. In any case, since you are talking about
adding/removing rules dynamically, I guess you don't need all of them all
the time.
ii) I guess you are talking about Package. Check the KnowledgeBuilder API
and examples.
iii) Start by the above page. Let us know if you have any specific question.
Edson
2010/1/18 kashif10 <kash452(a)yahoo.com>
Hi,
We have a product using weblogic server & weblogic rules.
We are planning to move our application to jboss As using drool rules.
Brief intro of our rules:
Currently we have around 20K rules in our databse. We load all those rules
form our database in to weblogic Rule Manger. All those rules loaded in to
Rule manger with rule ID as key & Rule Data as values. we can simply add
new ruels on run time we can remove any rule form RuleMnager at runtime.
Then we have catalogs in out databse pointing those rules.
So whenever user inputs some data & ask to evaluate that data with some
catalog.
Then we simply add user data in WM & get rules from Rule manager one by one
& evaliate the rule on the basisi of WM. In the end we send the
alerts/result to user.
My questions:
i) Is there a rule manger Api in drools to whoch we provide rule Id along
with rule data to load rules in memory.
& we can remove & add furtgur rules in to it.
Also how effecient is it to load & evaluate more than 20K rules.
ii) I don't find RuleSet in ApI, whats the replacement of it?
iii) Any link having good example to load rules & then evaluate a set from
this a caalog type of case.
I hope your precious answers will help us a lot to make the decision.
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://n3.nabble.com/Weblogic-rules-to-Drools-rules-tp126265p126265.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
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
5:20 p.m.
Thanks Edson,
I Went throught the documentation.
I cerate a small rule & its laod & evaluate ok.
But when I try to load a some bit large rule it stuks & thorws following
exception:
which is more than the configured time (StuckThreadMaxTime) of "600"
seconds. Stack trace:
org.mvel2.asm.ClassReader.<init>(ClassReader.java:146)
org.mvel2.asm.ClassReader.<init>(ClassReader.java:128)
d1.rule.Rule_0b48e126250100000080cb1e0dd40f6f_0Eval66Invoker.getMethodBytecode(Rule_0b48e126250100000080cb1e0dd40f6f_0Eval66Invoker.java:52)
d1.rule.Rule_0b48e126250100000080cb1e0dd40f6f_0Eval83Invoker.equals(Rule_0b48e126250100000080cb1e0dd40f6f_0Eval83Invoker.java:73)
org.drools.rule.EvalCondition.equals(EvalCondition.java:169)
org.drools.reteoo.EvalConditionNode.equals(EvalConditionNode.java:231)
org.drools.reteoo.CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.getMatchingNode(CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.java:102)
org.drools.reteoo.builder.BuildUtils.attachNode(BuildUtils.java:128)
org.drools.reteoo.builder.EvalBuilder.build(EvalBuilder.java:42)
org.drools.reteoo.builder.GroupElementBuilder$AndBuilder.build(GroupElementBuilder.java:126)
org.drools.reteoo.builder.GroupElementBuilder.build(GroupElementBuilder.java:73)
org.drools.reteoo.builder.ReteooRuleBuilder.addSubRule(ReteooRuleBuilder.java:153)
org.drools.reteoo.builder.ReteooRuleBuilder.addRule(ReteooRuleBuilder.java:126)
org.drools.reteoo.ReteooBuilder.addRule(ReteooBuilder.java:117)
org.drools.reteoo.ReteooRuleBase.addRule(ReteooRuleBase.java:362)
org.drools.common.AbstractRuleBase.addRule(AbstractRuleBase.java:618)
org.drools.common.AbstractRuleBase.addPackages(AbstractRuleBase.java:500)
org.drools.reteoo.ReteooRuleBase.addPackages(ReteooRuleBase.java:379)
org.drools.impl.KnowledgeBaseImpl.addKnowledgePackages(KnowledgeBaseImpl.java:121)
My questions are:
i) How can I increase the time.
ii) Currently I am using some thng as follows in our drl file:
when
#conditions
eval(cdaUtil.compareObservation("Blood Glucose", "82947",
"2.16.840.1.113883.6.12", "<93312000000", "",
"", "", "",
"").equals("false") )
and
eval(cdaUtil.compareDiagnosis("Coronary Artery Disease", "414.8",
"2.16.840.1.113883.6.2", "").equals("true") )
:
:
:
more conditions as above. around 40 -50 with OR / AND .
Actualy we have a class which have methods such as (compareObservation,
compareDiagnosis etc) to evaluate those conditions, We were using this
methodology in Weblogic rule xml too.
We don't have a class with attributes to set & evluate. So is the above
logic I ma using is ok or could you suggest some other drl way to evaluate
such rules.
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://n3.nabble.com/Weblogic-rules-to-Drools-rules-tp126265p140878.html
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
8:02 p.m.
You mean there are 40-50 conditions like that in a single rule? It is not
that you can't do, but how do you maintain such a thing? Sounds to me that
you need to step back and re-evaluate the way you are modeling your rules.
It is hard to point you to any direction based solely on the information in
this e-mail. If you have an example maybe? or if you are a Red Hat
subscriber, you could contact an SA to help you on this...
Edson
2010/1/27 kashif10 <kash452(a)yahoo.com>
Thanks Edson,
I Went throught the documentation.
I cerate a small rule & its laod & evaluate ok.
But when I try to load a some bit large rule it stuks & thorws following
exception:
which is more than the configured time (StuckThreadMaxTime) of "600"
seconds. Stack trace:
org.mvel2.asm.ClassReader.<init>(ClassReader.java:146)
org.mvel2.asm.ClassReader.<init>(ClassReader.java:128)
d1.rule.Rule_0b48e126250100000080cb1e0dd40f6f_0Eval66Invoker.getMethodBytecode(Rule_0b48e126250100000080cb1e0dd40f6f_0Eval66Invoker.java:52)
d1.rule.Rule_0b48e126250100000080cb1e0dd40f6f_0Eval83Invoker.equals(Rule_0b48e126250100000080cb1e0dd40f6f_0Eval83Invoker.java:73)
org.drools.rule.EvalCondition.equals(EvalCondition.java:169)
org.drools.reteoo.EvalConditionNode.equals(EvalConditionNode.java:231)
org.drools.reteoo.CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.getMatchingNode(CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.java:102)
org.drools.reteoo.builder.BuildUtils.attachNode(BuildUtils.java:128)
org.drools.reteoo.builder.EvalBuilder.build(EvalBuilder.java:42)
org.drools.reteoo.builder.GroupElementBuilder$AndBuilder.build(GroupElementBuilder.java:126)
org.drools.reteoo.builder.GroupElementBuilder.build(GroupElementBuilder.java:73)
org.drools.reteoo.builder.ReteooRuleBuilder.addSubRule(ReteooRuleBuilder.java:153)
org.drools.reteoo.builder.ReteooRuleBuilder.addRule(ReteooRuleBuilder.java:126)
org.drools.reteoo.ReteooBuilder.addRule(ReteooBuilder.java:117)
org.drools.reteoo.ReteooRuleBase.addRule(ReteooRuleBase.java:362)
org.drools.common.AbstractRuleBase.addRule(AbstractRuleBase.java:618)
org.drools.common.AbstractRuleBase.addPackages(AbstractRuleBase.java:500)
org.drools.reteoo.ReteooRuleBase.addPackages(ReteooRuleBase.java:379)
org.drools.impl.KnowledgeBaseImpl.addKnowledgePackages(KnowledgeBaseImpl.java:121)
My questions are:
i) How can I increase the time.
ii) Currently I am using some thng as follows in our drl file:
when
#conditions
eval(cdaUtil.compareObservation("Blood Glucose",
"82947",
"2.16.840.1.113883.6.12", "<93312000000", "",
"", "", "",
"").equals("false") )
and
eval(cdaUtil.compareDiagnosis("Coronary Artery
Disease", "414.8",
"2.16.840.1.113883.6.2", "").equals("true") )
:
:
:
more conditions as above. around 40 -50 with OR / AND .
Actualy we have a class which have methods such as (compareObservation,
compareDiagnosis etc) to evaluate those conditions, We were using this
methodology in Weblogic rule xml too.
We don't have a class with attributes to set & evluate. So is the above
logic I ma using is ok or could you suggest some other drl way to evaluate
such rules.
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://n3.nabble.com/Weblogic-rules-to-Drools-rules-tp126265p140878.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
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
10:05 p.m.
Yes we have around 15-20K rules & each rule have different set of conditions
ANDed/ORed.
Some rules are small have 10-15 conditions but some have more than 100
conditions to be fullfilled to trigger the rule.
The eval() function was taking time & never loads the single rule.
So today I change my logic & start using java beans, & insert the patient
profile/data in CDEntryCache bean this will not fullfilled all of us
condition, as we have some complex matching condition need to communicate
with db e.g drug formualrtions etc but to give a try, I create the rule as
follows:
Following rule having some conditions which should be matched with
WM(patient profile) to trigger the alert.
#created on: Jan 29, 2009
package my.rule;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Vector;
import java.rule.*;
global java.util.Vector resultIds;
rule "kash3"
when
#conditions
(
(
CDEntryCache( (valueName.iterator.next == "Vibrio abc 1")||
(ValueCode.iterator.next == "243327001" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.96") )
or
CDEntryCache( (valueName.iterator.next == "Vibrio abc splendidus 2")||
(ValueCode.iterator.next == "243327002" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.96") )
or
CDEntryCache( (valueName.iterator.next == "Vibrio abc splendidus 3")||
(ValueCode.iterator.next == "243327003" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.96") )
or
CDEntryCache( (valueName.iterator.next == "Vibrio abc splendidus 4")||
(ValueCode.iterator.next == "243327004" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.96") )
)
and
(
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.1" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.2" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.3" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.4" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
)
and
(
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "377.1" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "377.2" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "377.3" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "377.4" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
)
and
(
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "477.1" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "477.2" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "477.3" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "477.4" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
)
and
(
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "577.1" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "577.2" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "577.3" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "577.4" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
)
and
(
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "677.1" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "677.2" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "677.3" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "477.4" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
)
and
(
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "877.1" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "877.2" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "877.3" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "877.4" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
)
and
(
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "977.1" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "977.2" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "977.3" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "977.4" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
)
and
(
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "777.1" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "777.2" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "777.3" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "777.4" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
)
and
(
CDEntryCache( (valueName.iterator.next == "Vibrio splendidus biogroup I")||
(ValueCode.iterator.next == "115054009" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.96") )
)
and
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.6" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
)
then
#actions
System.out.println("*********** RULE TRIGGERS ************");
resultIds.add("kash3");
end
The above rule have 36 conditions of CDEntryCache 3-4 conditions ORed with
each other then ANDed with another similar type of condition block. And it
takes so much memory of the system on kbase.addKnowledgePackages
the rule file is around 6kb but the knowdge package taking so much memory.
from 40Mb it goes to 401Mb
after kbuilder.getKnowledgePackages()
Total Memory: 799145984
Used: 42047936
Free: 757098048
Percent Used: 5.261608872703789
Percent Free: 94.73839112729621
Time: 2010-01-29 15:55:53.419
after kbase.addKnowledgePackages(pkgs)
Total Memory: 799145984
Used: 420606424
Free: 378539560
Percent Used: 52.63198870057764
Percent Free: 47.368011299422356
Time: 2010-01-29 15:56:09.999
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://n3.nabble.com/Weblogic-rules-to-Drools-rules-tp126265p144134.html
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
11:01 p.m.
Hi,
Ok, let me try to understand... in the following piece of code:
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.1" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.2" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.3" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.4" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
Is "ValueCode" a list? meaning iterator is actually creating an iterator
for each of these conditions?
Can we simplify this?
CDEntryCache( valueCode[0] in ( "277.1", "277.2",
"277.3", "277.4"),
valueCodeSystem[0] == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2" )
Assuming valueCode and valueCodeSystem are lists and by "iterator.next"
you was getting the first element in each list, the above pattern is
equivalent to that snippet from your rule. Assuming this is true, we could
simplify a lot your rules, obviously improving the overall performance of
the system.
Just so you understand, every time you use "or", behind the scenes the
system calculates all possible logical branches and creates one "sub-rule"
for each logical branch. With the amount of nested "or"s you used in your
example rule, your kbase must be generating thousands of subrules.
Let me know if the above works for you and we can proceed.
Edson
2010/1/29 kashif10 <kash452(a)yahoo.com>
Yes we have around 15-20K rules & each rule have different set of
conditions
ANDed/ORed.
Some rules are small have 10-15 conditions but some have more than 100
conditions to be fullfilled to trigger the rule.
The eval() function was taking time & never loads the single rule.
So today I change my logic & start using java beans, & insert the patient
profile/data in CDEntryCache bean this will not fullfilled all of us
condition, as we have some complex matching condition need to communicate
with db e.g drug formualrtions etc but to give a try, I create the rule as
follows:
Following rule having some conditions which should be matched with
WM(patient profile) to trigger the alert.
#created on: Jan 29, 2009
package my.rule;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Vector;
import java.rule.*;
global java.util.Vector resultIds;
rule "kash3"
when
#conditions
(
(
CDEntryCache( (valueName.iterator.next == "Vibrio abc 1")||
(ValueCode.iterator.next == "243327001" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.96") )
or
CDEntryCache( (valueName.iterator.next == "Vibrio abc splendidus
2")||
(ValueCode.iterator.next == "243327002" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.96") )
or
CDEntryCache( (valueName.iterator.next == "Vibrio abc splendidus
3")||
(ValueCode.iterator.next == "243327003" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.96") )
or
CDEntryCache( (valueName.iterator.next == "Vibrio abc splendidus
4")||
(ValueCode.iterator.next == "243327004" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.96") )
)
and
(
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.1" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.2" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.3" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.4" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
)
and
(
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "377.1" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "377.2" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "377.3" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "377.4" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
)
and
(
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "477.1" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "477.2" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "477.3" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "477.4" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
)
and
(
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "577.1" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "577.2" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "577.3" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "577.4" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
)
and
(
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "677.1" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "677.2" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "677.3" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "477.4" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
)
and
(
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "877.1" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "877.2" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "877.3" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "877.4" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
)
and
(
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "977.1" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "977.2" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "977.3" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "977.4" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
)
and
(
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "777.1" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "777.2" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "777.3" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "777.4" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
)
and
(
CDEntryCache( (valueName.iterator.next == "Vibrio splendidus
biogroup I")||
(ValueCode.iterator.next == "115054009" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.96") )
)
and
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.6" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
)
then
#actions
System.out.println("*********** RULE TRIGGERS
************");
resultIds.add("kash3");
end
The above rule have 36 conditions of CDEntryCache 3-4 conditions ORed with
each other then ANDed with another similar type of condition block. And it
takes so much memory of the system on kbase.addKnowledgePackages
the rule file is around 6kb but the knowdge package taking so much memory.
from 40Mb it goes to 401Mb
after kbuilder.getKnowledgePackages()
Total Memory: 799145984
Used: 42047936
Free: 757098048
Percent Used: 5.261608872703789
Percent Free: 94.73839112729621
Time: 2010-01-29 15:55:53.419
after kbase.addKnowledgePackages(pkgs)
Total Memory: 799145984
Used: 420606424
Free: 378539560
Percent Used: 52.63198870057764
Percent Free: 47.368011299422356
Time: 2010-01-29 15:56:09.999
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://n3.nabble.com/Weblogic-rules-to-Drools-rules-tp126265p144134.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
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
6:13 p.m.
Using calls to a "property" method which is based on state (not to be
confused with a fact object's state) such as a java.util.Iterator's next(),
absolutely anything may happen when things are evaluated in
a Rete network.
I'd say that the ValueCode and ValueCodeSystem components
of a CDEntryCache must be "factored out" into facts of their
own, with links to their parent object.
Fact sets are best suited when they follow 1NF (yes, as in
database normal form).
-W
2010/1/29 Edson Tirelli <ed.tirelli(a)gmail.com>:
Hi,
Ok, let me try to understand... in the following piece of code:
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.1" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.2" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.3" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
or
CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.4" &&
ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
Is "ValueCode" a list? meaning iterator is actually creating an iterator
for each of these conditions?
Can we simplify this?
CDEntryCache( valueCode[0] in ( "277.1", "277.2",
"277.3", "277.4"),
valueCodeSystem[0] == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2" )
Assuming valueCode and valueCodeSystem are lists and by "iterator.next"
you was getting the first element in each list, the above pattern is
equivalent to that snippet from your rule. Assuming this is true, we could
simplify a lot your rules, obviously improving the overall performance of
the system.
Just so you understand, every time you use "or", behind the scenes the
system calculates all possible logical branches and creates one "sub-rule"
for each logical branch. With the amount of nested "or"s you used in your
example rule, your kbase must be generating thousands of subrules.
Let me know if the above works for you and we can proceed.
Edson
2010/1/29 kashif10 <kash452(a)yahoo.com>
>
> Yes we have around 15-20K rules & each rule have different set of
> conditions
> ANDed/ORed.
> Some rules are small have 10-15 conditions but some have more than 100
> conditions to be fullfilled to trigger the rule.
>
> The eval() function was taking time & never loads the single rule.
> So today I change my logic & start using java beans, & insert the patient
> profile/data in CDEntryCache bean this will not fullfilled all of us
> condition, as we have some complex matching condition need to communicate
> with db e.g drug formualrtions etc but to give a try, I create the rule as
> follows:
>
> Following rule having some conditions which should be matched with
> WM(patient profile) to trigger the alert.
>
> #created on: Jan 29, 2009
> package my.rule;
>
> import java.util.List;
> import java.util.Vector;
> import java.rule.*;
>
> global java.util.Vector resultIds;
>
> rule "kash3"
>
> when
> #conditions
>
> (
>
>
> (
>
> CDEntryCache( (valueName.iterator.next == "Vibrio abc 1")||
> (ValueCode.iterator.next == "243327001" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.96") )
>
> or
>
> CDEntryCache( (valueName.iterator.next == "Vibrio abc splendidus
> 2")||
> (ValueCode.iterator.next == "243327002" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.96") )
>
> or
> CDEntryCache( (valueName.iterator.next == "Vibrio abc splendidus
> 3")||
> (ValueCode.iterator.next == "243327003" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.96") )
>
> or
> CDEntryCache( (valueName.iterator.next == "Vibrio abc splendidus
> 4")||
> (ValueCode.iterator.next == "243327004" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.96") )
>
>
> )
> and
>
> (
>
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.1" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.2" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.3" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.4" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> )
>
> and
>
> (
>
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "377.1" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "377.2" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "377.3" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "377.4" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> )
>
> and
> (
>
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "477.1" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "477.2" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "477.3" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "477.4" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> )
>
>
> and
>
> (
>
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "577.1" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "577.2" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "577.3" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "577.4" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> )
>
>
> and
>
> (
>
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "677.1" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "677.2" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "677.3" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "477.4" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> )
>
>
> and
>
> (
>
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "877.1" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "877.2" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "877.3" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "877.4" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> )
>
>
> and
>
>
> (
>
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "977.1" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "977.2" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "977.3" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "977.4" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> )
>
>
> and
>
> (
>
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "777.1" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "777.2" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "777.3" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> or
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "777.4" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
> )
>
>
> and
> (
>
>
> CDEntryCache( (valueName.iterator.next == "Vibrio splendidus
> biogroup I")||
> (ValueCode.iterator.next == "115054009" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.96") )
>
> )
>
> and
> CDEntryCache( (ValueCode.iterator.next == "277.6" &&
> ValueCodeSystem.iterator.next == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2") )
>
> )
>
>
>
> then
> #actions
> System.out.println("*********** RULE TRIGGERS
> ************");
> resultIds.add("kash3");
>
> end
>
>
> The above rule have 36 conditions of CDEntryCache 3-4 conditions ORed with
> each other then ANDed with another similar type of condition block. And it
> takes so much memory of the system on kbase.addKnowledgePackages
> the rule file is around 6kb but the knowdge package taking so much memory.
> from 40Mb it goes to 401Mb
>
> after kbuilder.getKnowledgePackages()
> Total Memory: 799145984
> Used: 42047936
> Free: 757098048
> Percent Used: 5.261608872703789
> Percent Free: 94.73839112729621
> Time: 2010-01-29 15:55:53.419
>
> after kbase.addKnowledgePackages(pkgs)
> Total Memory: 799145984
> Used: 420606424
> Free: 378539560
> Percent Used: 52.63198870057764
> Percent Free: 47.368011299422356
> Time: 2010-01-29 15:56:09.999
>
>
>
> Thanks.
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://n3.nabble.com/Weblogic-rules-to-Drools-rules-tp126265p144134.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
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
6:56 p.m.
Thanks edson for you nice advise.
It really reduce the memory uage from 400 mb 70 mb..
compareDiagnosis( valueName[0] in ("Heart Failure") ||
(valueCode[0] in
("402.01","402.11","402.91","402.01","402.03","402.11","402.13","402.91","402.93",
"428.0 - 428.9") , valueCodeSystem[0] == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2" )
)
Here I have some questions.
i) we have to iterate whole valueName not only [0]. How we can do it.
ii) we have not only simple valueCode matching, we can have
a) Range in code such as 428.0 - 428.9, so any thing in WM having
valueCode b/w this range should match.
b) but we can't use simply numbers , we have to use String as we can have
code having alphabet such as "V32.4"
c) we can have wild card usage too. e.g code in Rule can be "V2*" which
can be match any thing at the place opf asterik in WM valuCodes.
I see that Rule engine do introspection & call get methods of the fields &
can do simple condition maching like ==, <, >etc. But mostly we have some
complex logic in matching like I told you in pt ii) of valuecode matching.
I think only sol is to call methods which will comes inside eval() & If we
start usig it for long rules. rules will never load & stuck :(...
Need your expet advise for those long & complex rules.
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://n3.nabble.com/Weblogic-rules-to-Drools-rules-tp126265p178895.html
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
7:23 p.m.
It seems as if your rules will fit nicely into a decisiontable.
Sent from my HTC (Android)
On Jan 30, 2010 7:58 PM, "kashif10" <kash452(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks edson for you nice advise.
It really reduce the memory uage from 400 mb 70 mb..
compareDiagnosis( valueName[0] in ("Heart Failure") ||
(valueCode[0] in
("402.01","402.11","402.91","402.01","402.03","402.11","402.13","402.91","402.93",
"428.0 - 428.9") , valueCodeSystem[0] == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2" )
)
Here I have some questions.
i) we have to iterate whole valueName not only [0]. How we can do it.
ii) we have not only simple valueCode matching, we can have
a) Range in code such as 428.0 - 428.9, so any thing in WM having
valueCode b/w this range should match.
b) but we can't use simply numbers , we have to use String as we can have
code having alphabet such as "V32.4"
c) we can have wild card usage too. e.g code in Rule can be "V2*" which
can be match any thing at the place opf asterik in WM valuCodes.
I see that Rule engine do introspection & call get methods of the fields &
can do simple condition maching like ==, <, >etc. But mostly we have some
complex logic in matching like I told you in pt ii) of valuecode matching.
I think only sol is to call methods which will comes inside eval() & If we
start usig it for long rules. rules will never load & stuck :(...
Need your expet advise for those long & complex rules.
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://n3.nabble.com/Weblogic-rules-to-Drools-rules-tp126265p178895.html
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
____________________________________...
7:57 p.m.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 6:56 PM, kashif10 <kash452(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks edson for you nice advise.
It really reduce the memory uage from 400 mb 70 mb..
compareDiagnosis( valueName[0] in ("Heart Failure") ||
(valueCode[0] in
("402.01","402.11","402.91","402.01","402.03","402.11","402.13","402.91","402.93",
"428.0 - 428.9") , valueCodeSystem[0] ==
"2.16.840.1.113883.6.2" ) )
Here I have some questions.
i) we have to iterate whole valueName not only [0]. How we can do it.
Check out
http://downloads.jboss.com/drools/docs/5.0.1.26597.FINAL/drools-expert/ht...
in 4.8.2.8. Conditional Element "from", which is one way of avoiding the
potentially evil next().
Also, consider creating fact objects, from your original data, which are
better suited for writing rules.
ii) we have not only simple valueCode matching, we can have
a) Range in code such as 428.0 - 428.9, so any thing in WM having
valueCode b/w this range should match.
b) but we can't use simply numbers , we have to use String as we can
have
code having alphabet such as "V32.4"
c) we can have wild card usage too. e.g code in Rule can be "V2*" which
can be match any thing at the place opf asterik in WM valuCodes.
Same chapter of the documentation, see the "matches" operator in section
4.8.2.1.1.3.1. Operators
-W
I see that Rule engine do introspection & call get methods of the fields
&
can do simple condition maching like ==, <, >etc. But mostly
we have some
complex logic in matching like I told you in pt ii) of valuecode matching.
I think only sol is to call methods which will comes inside eval() & If we
start usig it for long rules. rules will never load & stuck :(...
Need your expet advise for those long & complex rules.
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://n3.nabble.com/Weblogic-rules-to-Drools-rules-tp126265p178895.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
5:23 p.m.
Hi,
Please read Wolfgang's advices. They are all good.
On top of that, I think it is time to look at the problem as a whole.
You have a pretty big rule set (20k rules you mentioned) and each rule, if
loosely defined as in your example will have a huge number of patterns (for
a rule). You also mentioned you have some kind of front-end where users
input data and that generates rules.
I am not sure what the other engine is doing with all that data you are
setting as AND/OR conditions for the rules, but I doubt it is any better
than generating java code and using java code as boolean checks on wheter to
apply a set of actions or not (actually, it might be doing exactly that
behind the scenes). I am saying that because the Rete algorithm achieves
it's performance from a set of optimizations (for instance, the fact type
discrimination, node sharing, memory indexing, etc) that are simply
impossible to derive from custom data structures and method calls as you
mention you are doing.
For instance, from an execution performance perspective, it would be
simply better (**I am not recommending this** :)) to have a single huge eval
using && and || among your constraints, than having the up to 100 evals/rule
you mentioned in your first example. That is because even if you use the 100
evals, you will still not trigger any of the above mentioned optimizations,
while severely burdening the execution environment with overhead of separate
code blocks, context switches, etc.
Now, I understand you are trying to move your use case to another
solution and properly take advantage of the features available. You mention
several requirements you have and that you need to handle them
appropriately. The first thing you need to do is consider the proper
representation (or metaphor) that would best suit you. Since you have a
front end for rules authoring, that should not be a problem for you as it
would be hidden from the users anyway. It might just make things easier when
generating code, be it, DRL, decision tables, or whatever you choose.
Then, there are your questions:
i) we have to iterate whole valueName not only [0]. How we can do it.
Wolfgang already pointed you to the documentation on "from". Although,
specially with a model like yours, I would strongly recommend inserting all
the facts into the session, not only the top level fact. Usually, for a
constant model like yours, it is a matter of a simple procedure that
iterates your model and insert all the dependent facts into the working
memory, but that will benefit all of your rules that will be simpler to
express and much more performant, since you trade iteration by
hashing+indexing when you do that.
ii) we have not only simple valueCode matching, we can have
a) Range in code such as 428.0 - 428.9, so any thing in WM having
valueCode b/w this range should match.
b) but we can't use simply numbers , we have to use String as we can
have
code having alphabet such as "V32.4"
c) we can have wild card usage too. e.g code in Rule can be "V2*" which
can be match any thing at the place opf asterik in WM valuCodes.
It seems to me that what you need is just to use some custom
evaluators. For instance, you could implement an "inRange" evaluator that
takes a range an matches when the given value is included in the range.
Example:
MyFact( myValue inRange "428.0-428.9" )
Behind the scenes, you are still calling a method that is doing the
range matching verification (not much different than calling the method in
an eval block), but this has several advantages over the use of eval,
starting by the simplicity on rules authoring, improved testability and
*specially* the ability to improve node sharing among rules. Developing
custom evaluators for Drools requires a developer to write a class that
contains some boiler plate code, but even someone that never implemented one
before should be able to develop and test the operator in less than a day.
After it is done, you can simply start using it everywhere.
For letter (c) above, you can simply use the built-in "matches"
operator, if you use java compliant regexps, or again, build your custom
operator. Using matches would be:
MyFact( myValue matches "V2.*" )
I see that Rule engine do introspection & call get methods of the
fields &
can do simple condition maching like ==, <, >etc. But mostly we have some
complex logic in matching like I told you in pt ii) of valuecode matching.
I think only sol is to call methods which will comes inside eval() & If we
start usig it for long rules. rules will never load & stuck :(...
See comments above on custom operators. "eval" is supported on the rules
engine because it is an excellent fallback mechanism, i.e., whenever the
engine can't do what you need, you just use an eval() to do that. Although,
it obviously should be the *exception* and not the *rule* (no pun intended).
If your rules are composed mostly of evals, then the engine is clearly not
the best tool for you to do what you need.
Also, regarding your "temporal" constraints, I am curious about what
kind of constraints are that. Drools has the whole set of 13 temporal
operators defined by Alen that enable you to easily represent any temporal
constraint (check Drools Fusion docs, but the operators are available to use
in rules even if the rules don't use events). Also, I am working on a Drools
feature set to support what is usually called "Effective Dated Models",
where facts only match if their effective/expiration dates overlap (well, a
bit more complex than that, but this is a good summary).
So, to be brief, in your case I think it is just a matter of using the
proper features and expressing the rules in the proper way. You will be
pleasantly surprised with the results if you take the time to do so, I am
sure.
Edson
2010/1/30 kashif10 <kash452(a)yahoo.com>
>
> Thanks edson for you nice advise.
> It really reduce the memory uage from 400 mb 70 mb..
>
> compareDiagnosis( valueName[0] in ("Heart Failure") ||
> (valueCode[0] in
>
>
("402.01","402.11","402.91","402.01","402.03","402.11","402.13","402.91","402.93",
> "428.0 - 428.9") , valueCodeSystem[0] == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.2"
) )
>
>
> Here I have some questions.
>
i) we have to iterate whole valueName not only [0]. How we can do it.
>
> ii) we have not only simple valueCode matching, we can have
> a) Range in code such as 428.0 - 428.9, so any thing in WM having
> valueCode b/w this range should match.
> b) but we can't use simply numbers , we have to use String as we can have
> code having alphabet such as "V32.4"
> c) we can have wild card usage too. e.g code in Rule can be "V2*" which
> can be match any thing at the place opf asterik in WM valuCodes.
>
> I see that Rule engine do introspection & call get methods of the fields &
> can do simple condition maching like ==, <, >etc. But mostly we have some
> complex logic in matching like I told you in pt ii) of valuecode matching.
> I think only sol is to call methods which will comes inside eval() & If we
> start usig it for long rules. rules will never load & stuck :(...
>
> Need your expet advise for those long & complex rules.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://n3.nabble.com/Weblogic-rules-to-Drools-rules-tp126265p178895.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
>
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
11:12 a.m.
Is there any documentation on how to write these custom evaluators anywhere? I don't
recall seeing them mentioned anywhere before.
Thanks,
Thomas
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of Edson Tirelli
Sent: 31 January 2010 16:24
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Weblogic rules to Drools rules.
...
It seems to me that what you need is just to use some custom evaluators. For
instance, you could implement an "inRange" evaluator that takes a range an
matches when the given value is included in the range. Example:
MyFact( myValue inRange "428.0-428.9" )
Behind the scenes, you are still calling a method that is doing the range matching
verification (not much different than calling the method in an eval block), but this has
several advantages over the use of eval, starting by the simplicity on rules authoring,
improved testability and *specially* the ability to improve node sharing among rules.
Developing custom evaluators for Drools requires a developer to write a class that
contains some boiler plate code, but even someone that never implemented one before should
be able to develop and test the operator in less than a day. After it is done, you can
simply start using it everywhere.
________________________________
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
6:11 p.m.
Thanks all of you!
We are heading toward the solution.
i) We start putting interenal data too in WM.
ii) For time period matching I simply write a method in Fact class, which
calls using the exact name matching fucntionality.
iii) For complex code matching including exact number match, Range match,
wildcard match. I created the customEvalutor, usning new operator
codeChecker, to handle all required scenarios, as follows:
exists (Diagnosis(name == "diag3" || ( code codeChecker "V100-V200"
&&
codeSystem == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.96" ) ))
Ques: I need suggestion how to use my custom Evaluator codeChecker in
following suggested OR combination using in. As you know that if we don't
use "in" then we have to add so many ORed patterns.
exists (Diagnosis(name in ( "Vibrio abc splendidus" , "kash") || (
code in
( "243327005", "243327005") && codeSystem ==
"2.16.840.1.113883.6.96" ) ) )
-Kash
--
View this message in context:
http://n3.nabble.com/Weblogic-rules-to-Drools-rules-tp126265p181432.html
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
9:37 p.m.
Glad to hear things are moving forward!
How do you feel about writing a quick tutorial on how to implement a
custom evaluator so that others can benefit from your experience? :) We
could post it on the blog and add to the manual with the proper credits.
Regarding your question, "in" is a special parser syntax sugar we have in
Drools. So:
field in ("aValue", $aVariable, Some.CONSTANT)
Is exactly the same as:
field == "aValue" || == $aVariable || == Some.CONSTANT
So, the answer is, without patching Drools, unfortunately, it is not
possible to do the same with custom evaluators. In your case, the best I can
suggest without changing Drools parser is to have your evaluator receive all
possible values as a single String:
code codeChecker "V100-V200, 243327005, 243327005"
So, your operator would just split the list and check all values there
as appropriate. Obviously, if you would like to submit a patch for Drools
allowing custom evaluators to accept multiple values, we would gladly apply
the patch to the code base and support it from that time forward.
Cheers,
Edson
2010/2/1 kashif10 <kash452(a)yahoo.com>
Thanks all of you!
We are heading toward the solution.
i) We start putting interenal data too in WM.
ii) For time period matching I simply write a method in Fact class, which
calls using the exact name matching fucntionality.
iii) For complex code matching including exact number match, Range match,
wildcard match. I created the customEvalutor, usning new operator
codeChecker, to handle all required scenarios, as follows:
exists (Diagnosis(name == "diag3" || ( code codeChecker "V100-V200"
&&
codeSystem == "2.16.840.1.113883.6.96" ) ))
Ques: I need suggestion how to use my custom Evaluator codeChecker in
following suggested OR combination using in. As you know that if we don't
use "in" then we have to add so many ORed patterns.
exists (Diagnosis(name in ( "Vibrio abc splendidus" , "kash")
|| (
code in
( "243327005", "243327005") && codeSystem ==
"2.16.840.1.113883.6.96" ) )
)
-Kash
--
View this message in context:
http://n3.nabble.com/Weblogic-rules-to-Drools-rules-tp126265p181432.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
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
5191
days inactive
5205
days old
13 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Corneil du Plessis -
Edson Tirelli -
kashif10 -
Swindells, Thomas -
Wolfgang Laun