Hi Greg, Thanks for your help very much. I have to new StatelessKnowledgeSession for every request, and I test new StatelessKnowledgeSession in my machine. It costs 310ms for 1000 times. With insert, retract I can keep the StatefulKnowledgeSession instance. I will look into StatelessKnowledgeSession. Thanks very much again. 在2009-07-21，"Greg Barton" <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com&gt; 写道： > >There's no reason why you have to process all of your rules at once, or in

> >In addition, if you do have other rules, then your testing setup is

> >--- On Tue, 7/21/09, nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com&gt; wrote: > >> From: nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com&gt; >> Subject: Re: [rules-users] optimization on a lot of simple rules >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >> Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2009, 12:44 AM >> >> Agree, but I can't choose sequential mode for several >> reason. >> Sequential mode means StatelessKnowledgeSession. >> 1. every request needs to create a new session(working >> memory). >> 2. our ruleset has other rules. >> 3. with StatefulKnowledgeSession, some facts can be >> initialized before >> process the request. >> 4. Agenda is needed. >> >> Thanks very much. >> >> >> Greg Barton wrote: >> > >> > >> > Well, if your rules are going to be that simple, have >> you tried sequential >> > mode?? If there's never any reaction to working >> memory changes you don't >> > need the rete network.? You should get much >> better performance out of that >> > ruleset, and others like it, in sequential mode. >> > >> > See >> > >> http://downloads.jboss.com/drools/docs/5.0.1.26597.FINAL/drools-expert/ht..., >> > section "3.3.7.1. Sequential Mode" >> > >> > In a nutshell, the rete network is used for tracking >> and reacting to >> > changes in the objects inserted into working memory. >> (i.e. a rule fires, >> > changes a WM object, then other rules may be eligible >> to fire based on >> > that change.) If you're not going to be using that >> functionality you'd be >> > constructing and maintaining the rete for no >> reason.? >> > >> > --- On Mon, 7/20/09, nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com&gt; >> wrote: >> > >> >> From: nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com&gt; >> >> Subject: Re: [rules-users] optimization on a lot >> of simple rules >> >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >> >> Date: Monday, July 20, 2009, 10:13 PM >> >> >> >> I execute above test codes, with 100 rules running >> 1000 >> >> times. In the same >> >> time, I profile the test codes. >> >> http://www.nabble.com/file/p24581025/profile.jpg >> >> The profile result shows that some methods execute >> 100,000 >> >> times. >> >> In test codes, >> >> Service has two states, 0 or 1. >> >> Subscriber has two states, 0 or 1. >> >> >> >> inserted facts: >> >> Product product = new Product(1, 1); >> >> Service service = new Service(1); >> >> Subscriber subscriber = new Subscriber(1); >> >> >> >> Service matches a half of total rules, namely 50. >> So is >> >> Subscriber. >> >> (50 + 50 ) * 1000 (running times) = 100,000 >> >> >> >> I am confused what drools does. Is there a way to >> optimize >> >> it? >> >> >> >> >> >> Greg Barton wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > 1) Yes, if you eliminate joins in rules, you >> will have >> >> no joins in the >> >> > rete.? This is self evident. >> >> > >> >> > 2) The way you have the rules structured, >> there is no >> >> relationship between >> >> > the joined objects.? This will cause what's >> >> called a "cartesian join" >> >> > where all combinations of all instances of >> each object >> >> type are >> >> > instantiated.? This can be very expensive, >> memory >> >> and CPU wise.? You've >> >> > stated that there are only one instance of >> each object >> >> type in working >> >> > memory, but are you absolutely sure of >> that?? >> >> Cartesian joins can easily >> >> > cause performance problems quite quickly. >> >> > >> >> > For instance, say you've got these objects in >> working >> >> memory: >> >> > >> >> > Subscriber(gender="male") >> >> > Subscriber(gender="female") >> >> > Service(name="ftp") >> >> > Service(name="http") >> >> > Product(id=1) >> >> > Product(id=2) >> >> > Product(id=3) >> >> > >> >> > After inserting a Decision into working >> memory, the >> >> rule will fire 2*2*3 >> >> > times.? (#Subscribers * #Services * >> #Products) >> >> This is by design.? Is this >> >> > what you want? >> >> > >> >> > 3) Do you really need the 'Subscriber(gender >> == "male" >> >> or "female")' term? >> >> > Why not just 'Subscriber()'?? Are you >> classifying >> >> transgendered or >> >> > nonhuman subscribers in your system? >> >> > >> >> > --- On Mon, 7/20/09, nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com&gt; >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> From: nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com&gt; >> >> >> Subject: Re: [rules-users] optimization >> on a lot >> >> of simple rules > >> >> >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >> >> >> Date: Monday, July 20, 2009, 10:22 AM >> >> >> >> >> >> I want to test the matching performance >> of drools. >> >> As I >> >> >> mentioned that there >> >> >> are a lot of rules and? the rule is >> like: >> >> >> rule 1 >> >> >> ? ? when >> >> >> ? ? ? ? ? Decision() >> >> >> ? ? ? ???Subscriber(gender == >> >> >> "male" or "female") >> >> >> ? ? ? ???Service(name == >> >> >> "ftp" or "http") >> >> >> ? ? ? ???Product(id == 1) >> >> >> ? ? ? ? ? ...... >> >> >> ? ? then >> >> >> end >> >> >> >> >> >> After test, more condition elements under >> when, >> >> more time >> >> >> needs to execute >> >> >> the test. >> >> >> for example >> >> >> Location ( location == "home" or >> "office") >> >> >> and so on. >> >> >> So I worry about the matching performance >> with >> >> drools. >> >> >> >> >> >> I found that a lot of JoinNodes would be >> executed >> >> in >> >> >> runtime. I mean if >> >> >> there is 1000 rules, there will be a lot >> of >> >> JoinNodes >> >> >> (There are at least >> >> >> 1000 JoinNodes between Decision and >> Product ). And >> >> it >> >> >> exactly affects the >> >> >> execution performance. >> >> >> >> >> >> As you know, Decision, Product, Servcie >> and so on >> >> are plan >> >> >> Java classes. If >> >> >> I define all of attributes of above >> classes in one >> >> class >> >> >> named WholeFact, >> >> >> only one Java Type, there is no mentioned >> issue. >> >> >> >> >> >> With WholeFact class, the rule will be >> changed as >> >> follows: >> >> >> rule 1 >> >> >> ? ? when >> >> >> ? ? ? ? ? WholeFact( >> >> >> subscriberGender == "male" or "female", >> >> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> >> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? serviceName >> >> >> == "ftp" or "http", >> >> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> >> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? >> >> >> ???productId == 1 or 2 or 3 ... >> >> >> ? ? ? ? ? ) >> >> >> ? ? then >> >> >> end >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Greg Barton wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Now this finally rises to something >> that >> >> needs rules. >> >> >> :)? In all of the >> >> >> > previous examples you've given you >> could just >> >> have a >> >> >> > Map<ProductKey,Handler> where >> the >> >> Handler looks >> >> >> like this: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > interface Handler { >> >> >> >???void handle(Product product, >> Decision >> >> >> decision); >> >> >> > } >> >> >> > >> >> >> > ...and the ProductKey consists of >> properties >> >> that >> >> >> uniquely identify how >> >> >> > the Product is handled.? So, on >> it's own, >> >> that >> >> >> functionality did not >> >> >> > require rules. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > However, now that you've introduced >> more >> >> complex >> >> >> decisions, with varying >> >> >> > data, to affect the Decision for >> each >> >> Property type, >> >> >> rules are more >> >> >> > appropriate. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Is there any reason why you only >> have one of >> >> each >> >> >> object type in memory at >> >> >> > one time?? Maybe if you state more >> of the >> >> problem >> >> >> requirements we can help >> >> >> > you better. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > --- On Mon, 7/20/09, nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com&gt; >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> From: nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com&gt; >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [rules-users] >> optimization >> >> on a lot >> >> >> of simple rules >> >> >> >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >> >> >> >> Date: Monday, July 20, 2009, >> 4:14 AM >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks very much. >> >> >> >> But if for every rule, there is >> one >> >> algorithm or >> >> >> discount >> >> >> >> which means that >> >> >> >> result has nothing related with >> Product's >> >> id and >> >> >> usage. I >> >> >> >> can't merge all >> >> >> >> rules in one rule. At the same >> time, >> >> besides >> >> >> Product and >> >> >> >> Decision fact type, >> >> >> >> there are more fact types. >> >> >> >> For example: >> >> >> >> rule 1 >> >> >> >> ? ? when >> >> >> >> ? ? ? ???Decision() >> >> >> >> ? ? ? ???Subscriber(gender >> == >> >> >> >> "male" or "female") >> >> >> >> ? ? ? ???Service(name == >> >> >> >> "ftp" or "http") >> >> >> >> ? ? ? ???Product(id == 1) >> >> >> >> ? ? ? ???...... >> >> >> >> ???then >> >> >> >> ? ? ? ???...... >> >> >> >> end >> >> >> >> rule 2 >> >> >> >> ? ? when >> >> >> >> ? ? ? ???Decision() >> >> >> >> ? ? ? ???Subscriber(gender >> == >> >> >> >> "male" or "female") >> >> >> >> ? ? ? ???Service(name == >> >> >> >> "ftp" or "http") >> >> >> >> ? ? ? ???Product(id == 2) >> >> >> >> ? ? ? ???...... >> >> >> >> ???then >> >> >> >> ? ? ? ???...... >> >> >> >> end >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ..... >> >> >> >> ..... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In this scenario, if there are >> 1000 >> >> rules,? there >> >> >> will >> >> >> >> be a lot of JoinNode. >> >> >> >> But in runtime, there is only >> one >> >> Decision >> >> >> instance, one >> >> >> >> Subscriber instance >> >> >> >> and Service instance. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If I define all data in one fact >> type, I >> >> think >> >> >> that there >> >> >> >> are not a lot of >> >> >> >> JoinNodes. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Is there any other method? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wolfgang Laun-2 wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Well, what is the realtion >> between >> >> id, usage >> >> >> and the >> >> >> >> result that's to be >> >> >> >> > stored in a Decision or a >> global? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Typically, such rules could >> be >> >> written as >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > rule x >> >> >> >> > no-loop true >> >> >> >> > when >> >> >> >> >? ???$d : Decision() >> >> >> >> >? ???$p :Product( id == >> 1, $usage >> >> : >> >> >> >> usage ) >> >> >> >> > then >> >> >> >> >? ???compute/store >> value, >> >> depending >> >> >> >> on the formula for id == 1 >> (using >> >> >> >> > usage) >> >> >> >> > end >> >> >> >> > // similar rule for id == >> 2,3,... >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > If value is a >> straightforward >> >> function of id >> >> >> (and >> >> >> >> usage), then implement a >> >> >> >> > function compValue and use >> a single >> >> rule, >> >> >> e.g.: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > rule x >> >> >> >> > no-loop true >> >> >> >> > when >> >> >> >> >? ???$d : Decision() >> >> >> >> >? ???Product( $id : id, >> $usage : >> >> >> >> usage) >> >> >> >> > then >> >> >> >> >? ? modify $d value to >> compValue( >> >> $id, >> >> >> $usage >> >> >> >> ) >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Distinguishing all >> individual >> >> combinations of >> >> >> id and >> >> >> >> usage on the LHS >> >> >> >> > seems >> >> >> >> > excessive. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > The ordering of CEs also >> affects >> >> execution >> >> >> times. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > -W >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > On 7/20/09, nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com&gt; >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In this scenario, there >> are >> >> 1000 >> >> >> products, >> >> >> >> different product has >> >> >> >> >> different >> >> >> >> >> price, besides this, >> the price >> >> is >> >> >> affected by >> >> >> >> usage. I want to use >> >> >> >> >> Product.id to match the >> rules. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> As you mentioned "The >> crude >> >> duplication >> >> >> of rules >> >> >> >> where only the constant >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> be matched with >> >> >> >> >> Product.id varies can, >> most >> >> likely, be >> >> >> avoided." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How to avoid it in >> this >> >> scenario? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wolfgang Laun-2 wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > It's difficult to >> suggest >> >> an >> >> >> optimized form >> >> >> >> for your rules 1-infinity, >> >> >> >> >> > since >> >> >> >> >> > we do not know >> what you >> >> want to >> >> >> achieve. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > The crude >> duplication of >> >> rules where >> >> >> only the >> >> >> >> constant to be matched >> >> >> >> >> with >> >> >> >> >> > Product.id varies >> can, most >> >> likely, >> >> >> be >> >> >> >> avoided. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > -W >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > On Sun, Jul 19, >> 2009 at >> >> 3:15 PM, >> >> >> nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com&gt; >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am a newbie >> in >> >> drools. There >> >> >> are a lot >> >> >> >> of simple rules in a >> >> >> >> >> scenario. >> >> >> >> >> >> For example >> >> >> >> >> >> rule 1 >> >> >> >> >> >>? ? when >> >> >> >> >> >>? ? ? ? >> Product( id >> >> >> >> ==1, usage == 1) >> >> >> >> >> >>? ? ? ? >> $decision : >> >> >> >> Decision() >> >> >> >> >> >>? ? then >> >> >> >> >> >>? ? ? >> >> >> >> ???$decision.setValue(1); >> >> >> >> >> >> end >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> rule 2 >> >> >> >> >> >> when Product( >> id ==2, >> >> usage == >> >> >> 1) >> >> >> >> >> >>? $decision : >> >> Decision() >> >> >> >> >> >> rule 3 >> >> >> >> >> >> when Product( >> id ==3, >> >> usage == >> >> >> 1) >> >> >> >> >> >>? $decision : >> >> Decision() >> >> >> >> >> >> rule 4 >> >> >> >> >> >> when Product( >> id ==4, >> >> usage == >> >> >> 1) >> >> >> >> >> >>? $decision : >> >> Decision() >> >> >> >> >> >> rule 5 >> >> >> >> >> >> when Product( >> id ==5, >> >> usage == >> >> >> 1) >> >> >> >> >> >>? $decision : >> >> Decision() >> >> >> >> >> >> ...... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I have a >> Product fact >> >> whose id = >> >> >> 5 and >> >> >> >> usage = 1, in my first >> >> >> >> >> thinking, >> >> >> >> >> >> only >> >> >> >> >> >> rule 5 is >> matched, >> >> there should >> >> >> be not >> >> >> >> much more different between 1 >> >> >> >> >> rule >> >> >> >> >> >> and a lot of >> rules in >> >> runtime. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> But the result >> shows >> >> that they >> >> >> are >> >> >> >> different. More rules will cost >> >> >> >> >> more >> >> >> >> >> >> time. If there >> are 1 >> >> thousand >> >> >> rules, some >> >> >> >> Node and Sink will execute 1 >> >> >> >> >> >> thousand >> times. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> My question is >> how to >> >> optimize >> >> >> this >> >> >> >> scenario? >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> View this >> message in >> >> context: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.nabble.com/optimization-on-a-lot-of-simple-rules-tp24556724p24... >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> > rules-users >> mailing list >> >> >> >> >> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >> >> >> >> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> View this message in >> context: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.nabble.com/optimization-on-a-lot-of-simple-rules-tp24556724p24... >> >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> >> > rules-users mailing list >> >> >> >> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >> >> >> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> View this message in context: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.nabble.com/optimization-on-a-lot-of-simple-rules-tp24556724p24... >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >? ? ??? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> > rules-users mailing list >> >> >> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >> >> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> View this message in context: >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.nabble.com/optimization-on-a-lot-of-simple-rules-tp24556724p24... >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >? ? ??? >> >> > >> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> >> > rules-users mailing list >> >> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> View this message in context: >> >> >> http://www.nabble.com/optimization-on-a-lot-of-simple-rules-tp24556724p24... >> >> 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 >> >> >> > >> > >> >? ? ??? >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > rules-users mailing list >> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> > >> > >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/optimization-on-a-lot-of-simple-rules-tp24556724p24... >> 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 >> > > > > >_______________________________________________ >rules-users mailing list &gt;rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users