4:20 a.m.
Hi everyone,
I am working on what appears to be a fairly complex rule base based on
EMF. The rules aren't operating over a huge number of facts (less than
10,000 EObjects) and there aren't too many rules (less than 300), but
I am having a problem with running out of Java heap space (set at ~400
MB).
Through investigation, I came to the conclusion that this is due to
the design of the rules, rather than the number of facts. The engine
uses less memory inserting many facts that use simple rules, compared
with inserting few facts that use many rules.
Can anybody suggest some tips for reducing heap memory usage in
Drools? I don't have a time constraint, only a heap/memory constraint.
A sample rule in my project looks like this:
rule "Create QueryParameter for target container of DetailWire"
when
container : Frame( )
schema : DomainSchema ( )
domainSource : DomainSource ( )
instance : DomainIterator( )
selectEdge : SelectEdge ( eval (
functions.connectsSelect(selectEdge, instance, domainSource )) )
schemaEdge : SchemaEdge ( eval (
functions.connectsSchema(schemaEdge, domainSource, schema )) )
source : VisibleThing ( eContainer == container )
target : Frame ( )
instanceSet : SetWire ( eval(functions.connectsSet(instanceSet,
instance, source )) )
detail : DetailWire ( )
eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target ))
pk : DomainAttribute ( eContainer == schema, primaryKey == true )
not ( queryPk : QueryParameter ( eContainer == target, name == pk.name ) )
eval ( handler.veto( detail ))
then
QueryParameter qp = handler.generatedQueryParameter(detail, target);
handler.setName(qp, pk.getName());
queue.add(qp, drools); // wraps insert(...)
end
I try to order the select statements in an order that will reduce the
size of the cross-product (in theory), but I also try and keep the
rules fairly human readable. I try to avoid comparison operators like
< and >. Analysing a heap dump shows that most of the memory is being
used in StatefulSession.nodeMemories > PrimitiveLongMap.
I am using a StatefulSession; if I understand correctly, I can't use a
StatelessSession with sequential mode since I am inserting facts as
part of the rules. If I also understand correctly, I'd like the Rete
graph to be tall, rather than wide.
Some ideas I have thought of include the following:
1. Creating a separate intermediary meta-model to split up the sizes
of the rules. e.g. instead of (if A and B and C then insert D), using
(if A and B then insert E; if E and C then insert D).
2. Moving eval() statements directly into the Type(...) selectors.
3. Removing eval() statements. Would this allow for better indexing by
the Rete algorithm?
4. Reducing the height, or the width, of the class hierarchy of the
facts. e.g. Removing interfaces or abstract classes to reduce the
possible matches. Would this make a difference?
5. Conversely, increasing the height, or the width, of the class
hierarchy. e.g. Adding interfaces or abstract classes to reduce field
accessors.
6. Instead of using EObject.eContainer, creating an explicit
containment property in all of my EObjects.
7. Creating a DSL that is human-readable, but allows for the
automation of some of these approaches.
8. Moving all rules into one rule file, or splitting up rules into
smaller files.
Is there kind of profiler for Drools that will let me see the size (or
the memory usage) of particular rules, or of the memory used after
inference? Ideally I'd use this to profile any changes.
Thanks for any thoughts or tips! :-)
Jevon
7:39 a.m.
Your sample rule is indeed causing maximum memory usage for the Rete.
With your "ideas" you are definitly on the right track. Not knowing what
is hidden in functions.*() or handelr.*() one can't rewrite this rule.
Just some observations:
(a) eval ( handler.veto( detail )) - This condition can be checked
three lines up, in detail: DetailWire().
(b) container : Frame( ) - This is useless, since you get eContainer
as an attribute from VisibleThing (At most, it ensures that this isn't
null.)
(c) I'm inclined to believe that all the functions.*() can be written
as conditions on attributes, doing away with all the evals.
HTH
-W
On 9 July 2010 10:20, Jevon Wright <jevon(a)jevon.org> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am working on what appears to be a fairly complex rule base based on
EMF. The rules aren't operating over a huge number of facts (less than
10,000 EObjects) and there aren't too many rules (less than 300), but
I am having a problem with running out of Java heap space (set at ~400
MB).
Through investigation, I came to the conclusion that this is due to
the design of the rules, rather than the number of facts. The engine
uses less memory inserting many facts that use simple rules, compared
with inserting few facts that use many rules.
Can anybody suggest some tips for reducing heap memory usage in
Drools? I don't have a time constraint, only a heap/memory constraint.
A sample rule in my project looks like this:
rule "Create QueryParameter for target container of DetailWire"
when
container : Frame( )
schema : DomainSchema ( )
domainSource : DomainSource ( )
instance : DomainIterator( )
selectEdge : SelectEdge ( eval (
functions.connectsSelect(selectEdge, instance, domainSource )) )
schemaEdge : SchemaEdge ( eval (
functions.connectsSchema(schemaEdge, domainSource, schema )) )
source : VisibleThing ( eContainer == container )
target : Frame ( )
instanceSet : SetWire ( eval(functions.connectsSet(instanceSet,
instance, source )) )
detail : DetailWire ( )
eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target ))
pk : DomainAttribute ( eContainer == schema, primaryKey == true )
not ( queryPk : QueryParameter ( eContainer == target, name == pk.name ) )
eval ( handler.veto( detail ))
then
QueryParameter qp = handler.generatedQueryParameter(detail, target);
handler.setName(qp, pk.getName());
queue.add(qp, drools); // wraps insert(...)
end
I try to order the select statements in an order that will reduce the
size of the cross-product (in theory), but I also try and keep the
rules fairly human readable. I try to avoid comparison operators like
< and >. Analysing a heap dump shows that most of the memory is being
used in StatefulSession.nodeMemories > PrimitiveLongMap.
I am using a StatefulSession; if I understand correctly, I can't use a
StatelessSession with sequential mode since I am inserting facts as
part of the rules. If I also understand correctly, I'd like the Rete
graph to be tall, rather than wide.
Some ideas I have thought of include the following:
1. Creating a separate intermediary meta-model to split up the sizes
of the rules. e.g. instead of (if A and B and C then insert D), using
(if A and B then insert E; if E and C then insert D).
2. Moving eval() statements directly into the Type(...) selectors.
3. Removing eval() statements. Would this allow for better indexing by
the Rete algorithm?
4. Reducing the height, or the width, of the class hierarchy of the
facts. e.g. Removing interfaces or abstract classes to reduce the
possible matches. Would this make a difference?
5. Conversely, increasing the height, or the width, of the class
hierarchy. e.g. Adding interfaces or abstract classes to reduce field
accessors.
6. Instead of using EObject.eContainer, creating an explicit
containment property in all of my EObjects.
7. Creating a DSL that is human-readable, but allows for the
automation of some of these approaches.
8. Moving all rules into one rule file, or splitting up rules into
smaller files.
Is there kind of profiler for Drools that will let me see the size (or
the memory usage) of particular rules, or of the memory used after
inference? Ideally I'd use this to profile any changes.
Thanks for any thoughts or tips! :-)
Jevon
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
8:14 a.m.
You have many objects there that are not constrained; if there are
multiple versions of those objects you are going to get massive amounts
of cross products. Think in terms of SQL, each pattern you add is like
an SQL join.
Mark
On 09/07/2010 09:20, Jevon Wright wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am working on what appears to be a fairly complex rule base based on
EMF. The rules aren't operating over a huge number of facts (less than
10,000 EObjects) and there aren't too many rules (less than 300), but
I am having a problem with running out of Java heap space (set at ~400
MB).
Through investigation, I came to the conclusion that this is due to
the design of the rules, rather than the number of facts. The engine
uses less memory inserting many facts that use simple rules, compared
with inserting few facts that use many rules.
Can anybody suggest some tips for reducing heap memory usage in
Drools? I don't have a time constraint, only a heap/memory constraint.
A sample rule in my project looks like this:
rule "Create QueryParameter for target container of DetailWire"
when
container : Frame( )
schema : DomainSchema ( )
domainSource : DomainSource ( )
instance : DomainIterator( )
selectEdge : SelectEdge ( eval (
functions.connectsSelect(selectEdge, instance, domainSource )) )
schemaEdge : SchemaEdge ( eval (
functions.connectsSchema(schemaEdge, domainSource, schema )) )
source : VisibleThing ( eContainer == container )
target : Frame ( )
instanceSet : SetWire ( eval(functions.connectsSet(instanceSet,
instance, source )) )
detail : DetailWire ( )
eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target ))
pk : DomainAttribute ( eContainer == schema, primaryKey == true )
not ( queryPk : QueryParameter ( eContainer == target, name == pk.name ) )
eval ( handler.veto( detail ))
then
QueryParameter qp = handler.generatedQueryParameter(detail, target);
handler.setName(qp, pk.getName());
queue.add(qp, drools); // wraps insert(...)
end
I try to order the select statements in an order that will reduce the
size of the cross-product (in theory), but I also try and keep the
rules fairly human readable. I try to avoid comparison operators like
< and>. Analysing a heap dump shows that most of the memory is being
used in StatefulSession.nodeMemories> PrimitiveLongMap.
I am using a StatefulSession; if I understand correctly, I can't use a
StatelessSession with sequential mode since I am inserting facts as
part of the rules. If I also understand correctly, I'd like the Rete
graph to be tall, rather than wide.
Some ideas I have thought of include the following:
1. Creating a separate intermediary meta-model to split up the sizes
of the rules. e.g. instead of (if A and B and C then insert D), using
(if A and B then insert E; if E and C then insert D).
2. Moving eval() statements directly into the Type(...) selectors.
3. Removing eval() statements. Would this allow for better indexing by
the Rete algorithm?
4. Reducing the height, or the width, of the class hierarchy of the
facts. e.g. Removing interfaces or abstract classes to reduce the
possible matches. Would this make a difference?
5. Conversely, increasing the height, or the width, of the class
hierarchy. e.g. Adding interfaces or abstract classes to reduce field
accessors.
6. Instead of using EObject.eContainer, creating an explicit
containment property in all of my EObjects.
7. Creating a DSL that is human-readable, but allows for the
automation of some of these approaches.
8. Moving all rules into one rule file, or splitting up rules into
smaller files.
Is there kind of profiler for Drools that will let me see the size (or
the memory usage) of particular rules, or of the memory used after
inference? Ideally I'd use this to profile any changes.
Thanks for any thoughts or tips! :-)
Jevon
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
8:28 a.m.
On 9 July 2010 14:14, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
You have many objects there that are not constrained;
I have an inkling that the functions.*() are hiding just these contraints,
It's certainly the wrong way, starting with oodles of node pairs, just to
pick out connected ones by fishing for the connecting edge. And this
is worsened by trying to find two such pairs which meet at some
DomainSource
Guesswork, hopefully educated ;-)
-W
if there are
multiple versions of those objects you are going to get massive amounts
of cross products. Think in terms of SQL, each pattern you add is like
an SQL join.
Mark
On 09/07/2010 09:20, Jevon Wright wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I am working on what appears to be a fairly complex rule base based on
> EMF. The rules aren't operating over a huge number of facts (less than
> 10,000 EObjects) and there aren't too many rules (less than 300), but
> I am having a problem with running out of Java heap space (set at ~400
> MB).
>
> Through investigation, I came to the conclusion that this is due to
> the design of the rules, rather than the number of facts. The engine
> uses less memory inserting many facts that use simple rules, compared
> with inserting few facts that use many rules.
>
> Can anybody suggest some tips for reducing heap memory usage in
> Drools? I don't have a time constraint, only a heap/memory constraint.
> A sample rule in my project looks like this:
>
> rule "Create QueryParameter for target container of DetailWire"
> when
> container : Frame( )
> schema : DomainSchema ( )
> domainSource : DomainSource ( )
> instance : DomainIterator( )
> selectEdge : SelectEdge ( eval (
> functions.connectsSelect(selectEdge, instance, domainSource )) )
> schemaEdge : SchemaEdge ( eval (
> functions.connectsSchema(schemaEdge, domainSource, schema )) )
> source : VisibleThing ( eContainer == container )
> target : Frame ( )
> instanceSet : SetWire ( eval(functions.connectsSet(instanceSet,
> instance, source )) )
> detail : DetailWire ( )
> eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target ))
> pk : DomainAttribute ( eContainer == schema, primaryKey == true )
> not ( queryPk : QueryParameter ( eContainer == target, name == pk.name ) )
> eval ( handler.veto( detail ))
>
> then
> QueryParameter qp = handler.generatedQueryParameter(detail, target);
> handler.setName(qp, pk.getName());
> queue.add(qp, drools); // wraps insert(...)
>
> end
>
> I try to order the select statements in an order that will reduce the
> size of the cross-product (in theory), but I also try and keep the
> rules fairly human readable. I try to avoid comparison operators like
> < and>. Analysing a heap dump shows that most of the memory is being
> used in StatefulSession.nodeMemories> PrimitiveLongMap.
>
> I am using a StatefulSession; if I understand correctly, I can't use a
> StatelessSession with sequential mode since I am inserting facts as
> part of the rules. If I also understand correctly, I'd like the Rete
> graph to be tall, rather than wide.
>
> Some ideas I have thought of include the following:
> 1. Creating a separate intermediary meta-model to split up the sizes
> of the rules. e.g. instead of (if A and B and C then insert D), using
> (if A and B then insert E; if E and C then insert D).
> 2. Moving eval() statements directly into the Type(...) selectors.
> 3. Removing eval() statements. Would this allow for better indexing by
> the Rete algorithm?
> 4. Reducing the height, or the width, of the class hierarchy of the
> facts. e.g. Removing interfaces or abstract classes to reduce the
> possible matches. Would this make a difference?
> 5. Conversely, increasing the height, or the width, of the class
> hierarchy. e.g. Adding interfaces or abstract classes to reduce field
> accessors.
> 6. Instead of using EObject.eContainer, creating an explicit
> containment property in all of my EObjects.
> 7. Creating a DSL that is human-readable, but allows for the
> automation of some of these approaches.
> 8. Moving all rules into one rule file, or splitting up rules into
> smaller files.
>
> Is there kind of profiler for Drools that will let me see the size (or
> the memory usage) of particular rules, or of the memory used after
> inference? Ideally I'd use this to profile any changes.
>
> Thanks for any thoughts or tips! :-)
>
> Jevon
> _______________________________________________
> 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
1:56 a.m.
Hi Wolfgang and Mark,
Thank you for your replies! You were correct: my eval() functions
could generally be rewritten into Drools directly.
I had one function "connectsDetail" that was constraining
unidirectional edges, and could be rewritten from:
detail : DetailWire ( )
eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target) )
to:
detail : DetailWire ( from == source, to == target )
Another function, "connects", was constraining bidirectional edges,
and could be rewritten from:
sync : SyncWire( )
eval ( functions.connects(sync, source, target) )
to:
sync : SyncWire( (from == source && to == target) || (from == target
&& to == source) )
Finally, the "veto" function could be rewritten from:
detail : DetailWire ( )
eval ( handler.veto(detail) )
to:
detail : DetailWire ( overridden == false )
I took each of these three changes, and evaluated them separately [1].
I found that:
1. Inlining 'connectsDetail' made a huge difference - 10-30% faster
execution and 50-60% less allocated heap.
2. Inlining 'connects' made very little difference - 10-30% faster
execution, but 0-20% more allocated heap.
3. Inlining 'veto' made no difference - no significant change in
execution speed or allocated heap.
I think I understand why inlining 'connects' would improve heap usage
- because the rules essentially have more conditionals?
I also understand why 'veto' made no difference - for most of my test
models, "overridden" was never true, so adding this conditional was
not making the cross product set any smaller.
Finally, I also tested simply joining all of the rules together into
one file. This happily made no difference at all (although made it
more difficult to edit).
So I think I can safely conclude that eval() should be used as little
as possible - however, this means that the final rules are made more
complicated and less human-readable, so a DSL may be best for my
common rule patterns in the future.
Thanks again!
Jevon
[1]: http://www.jevon.org/wiki/Improving_Drools_Memory_Performance
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 July 2010 14:14, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org>
wrote:
> You have many objects there that are not constrained;
I have an inkling that the functions.*() are hiding just these contraints,
It's certainly the wrong way, starting with oodles of node pairs, just to
pick out connected ones by fishing for the connecting edge. And this
is worsened by trying to find two such pairs which meet at some
DomainSource
Guesswork, hopefully educated ;-)
-W
> if there are
> multiple versions of those objects you are going to get massive amounts
> of cross products. Think in terms of SQL, each pattern you add is like
> an SQL join.
>
> Mark
> On 09/07/2010 09:20, Jevon Wright wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I am working on what appears to be a fairly complex rule base based on
>> EMF. The rules aren't operating over a huge number of facts (less than
>> 10,000 EObjects) and there aren't too many rules (less than 300), but
>> I am having a problem with running out of Java heap space (set at ~400
>> MB).
>>
>> Through investigation, I came to the conclusion that this is due to
>> the design of the rules, rather than the number of facts. The engine
>> uses less memory inserting many facts that use simple rules, compared
>> with inserting few facts that use many rules.
>>
>> Can anybody suggest some tips for reducing heap memory usage in
>> Drools? I don't have a time constraint, only a heap/memory constraint.
>> A sample rule in my project looks like this:
>>
>> rule "Create QueryParameter for target container of DetailWire"
>> when
>> container : Frame( )
>> schema : DomainSchema ( )
>> domainSource : DomainSource ( )
>> instance : DomainIterator( )
>> selectEdge : SelectEdge ( eval (
>> functions.connectsSelect(selectEdge, instance, domainSource )) )
>> schemaEdge : SchemaEdge ( eval (
>> functions.connectsSchema(schemaEdge, domainSource, schema )) )
>> source : VisibleThing ( eContainer == container )
>> target : Frame ( )
>> instanceSet : SetWire ( eval(functions.connectsSet(instanceSet,
>> instance, source )) )
>> detail : DetailWire ( )
>> eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target ))
>> pk : DomainAttribute ( eContainer == schema, primaryKey == true )
>> not ( queryPk : QueryParameter ( eContainer == target, name == pk.name )
)
>> eval ( handler.veto( detail ))
>>
>> then
>> QueryParameter qp = handler.generatedQueryParameter(detail, target);
>> handler.setName(qp, pk.getName());
>> queue.add(qp, drools); // wraps insert(...)
>>
>> end
>>
>> I try to order the select statements in an order that will reduce the
>> size of the cross-product (in theory), but I also try and keep the
>> rules fairly human readable. I try to avoid comparison operators like
>> < and>. Analysing a heap dump shows that most of the memory is being
>> used in StatefulSession.nodeMemories> PrimitiveLongMap.
>>
>> I am using a StatefulSession; if I understand correctly, I can't use a
>> StatelessSession with sequential mode since I am inserting facts as
>> part of the rules. If I also understand correctly, I'd like the Rete
>> graph to be tall, rather than wide.
>>
>> Some ideas I have thought of include the following:
>> 1. Creating a separate intermediary meta-model to split up the sizes
>> of the rules. e.g. instead of (if A and B and C then insert D), using
>> (if A and B then insert E; if E and C then insert D).
>> 2. Moving eval() statements directly into the Type(...) selectors.
>> 3. Removing eval() statements. Would this allow for better indexing by
>> the Rete algorithm?
>> 4. Reducing the height, or the width, of the class hierarchy of the
>> facts. e.g. Removing interfaces or abstract classes to reduce the
>> possible matches. Would this make a difference?
>> 5. Conversely, increasing the height, or the width, of the class
>> hierarchy. e.g. Adding interfaces or abstract classes to reduce field
>> accessors.
>> 6. Instead of using EObject.eContainer, creating an explicit
>> containment property in all of my EObjects.
>> 7. Creating a DSL that is human-readable, but allows for the
>> automation of some of these approaches.
>> 8. Moving all rules into one rule file, or splitting up rules into
>> smaller files.
>>
>> Is there kind of profiler for Drools that will let me see the size (or
>> the memory usage) of particular rules, or of the memory used after
>> inference? Ideally I'd use this to profile any changes.
>>
>> Thanks for any thoughts or tips! :-)
>>
>> Jevon
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
11:16 p.m.
Hi again,
By removing all of the simple eval()s from my rules, I have cut heap usage
by at least an order of magnitude. However this still isn't enough.
Since I am trying to reduce the cross-product size (as in SQL), I recall
that most SQL implementations have a "DESCRIBE SELECT" query which provides
real-time information about the complexity of a given SQL query - i.e. the
size of the tables, indexes used, and so on. Is there any such tool
available for Drools? Are there any tools which can provide clues as to
which rules are using the most memory?
Alternatively, I am wondering what kind of benefit I could expect from using
materialized views to create summary tables; that is, deriving and inserting
additional facts. This would allow Drools to rewrite queries that currently
use eval(), but would increase the size of working memory, so would this
actually save heap size?
To what extent does Drools rewrite queries? Is there any documentation
describing the approaches used?
Any other ideas on how to reduce heap memory usage? I'd appreciate any ideas
:)
Thanks
Jevon
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Jevon Wright <jevon(a)jevon.org> wrote:
Hi Wolfgang and Mark,
Thank you for your replies! You were correct: my eval() functions
could generally be rewritten into Drools directly.
I had one function "connectsDetail" that was constraining
unidirectional edges, and could be rewritten from:
detail : DetailWire ( )
eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target) )
to:
detail : DetailWire ( from == source, to == target )
Another function, "connects", was constraining bidirectional edges,
and could be rewritten from:
sync : SyncWire( )
eval ( functions.connects(sync, source, target) )
to:
sync : SyncWire( (from == source && to == target) || (from == target
&& to == source) )
Finally, the "veto" function could be rewritten from:
detail : DetailWire ( )
eval ( handler.veto(detail) )
to:
detail : DetailWire ( overridden == false )
I took each of these three changes, and evaluated them separately [1].
I found that:
1. Inlining 'connectsDetail' made a huge difference - 10-30% faster
execution and 50-60% less allocated heap.
2. Inlining 'connects' made very little difference - 10-30% faster
execution, but 0-20% more allocated heap.
3. Inlining 'veto' made no difference - no significant change in
execution speed or allocated heap.
I think I understand why inlining 'connects' would improve heap usage
- because the rules essentially have more conditionals?
I also understand why 'veto' made no difference - for most of my test
models, "overridden" was never true, so adding this conditional was
not making the cross product set any smaller.
Finally, I also tested simply joining all of the rules together into
one file. This happily made no difference at all (although made it
more difficult to edit).
So I think I can safely conclude that eval() should be used as little
as possible - however, this means that the final rules are made more
complicated and less human-readable, so a DSL may be best for my
common rule patterns in the future.
Thanks again!
Jevon
[1]: http://www.jevon.org/wiki/Improving_Drools_Memory_Performance
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 9 July 2010 14:14, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
>> You have many objects there that are not constrained;
>
> I have an inkling that the functions.*() are hiding just these
contraints,
> It's certainly the wrong way, starting with oodles of node pairs, just to
> pick out connected ones by fishing for the connecting edge. And this
> is worsened by trying to find two such pairs which meet at some
> DomainSource
>
> Guesswork, hopefully educated ;-)
>
> -W
>
>
>> if there are
>> multiple versions of those objects you are going to get massive amounts
>> of cross products. Think in terms of SQL, each pattern you add is like
>> an SQL join.
>>
>> Mark
>> On 09/07/2010 09:20, Jevon Wright wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I am working on what appears to be a fairly complex rule base based on
>>> EMF. The rules aren't operating over a huge number of facts (less than
>>> 10,000 EObjects) and there aren't too many rules (less than 300), but
>>> I am having a problem with running out of Java heap space (set at ~400
>>> MB).
>>>
>>> Through investigation, I came to the conclusion that this is due to
>>> the design of the rules, rather than the number of facts. The engine
>>> uses less memory inserting many facts that use simple rules, compared
>>> with inserting few facts that use many rules.
>>>
>>> Can anybody suggest some tips for reducing heap memory usage in
>>> Drools? I don't have a time constraint, only a heap/memory constraint.
>>> A sample rule in my project looks like this:
>>>
>>> rule "Create QueryParameter for target container of
DetailWire"
>>> when
>>> container : Frame( )
>>> schema : DomainSchema ( )
>>> domainSource : DomainSource ( )
>>> instance : DomainIterator( )
>>> selectEdge : SelectEdge ( eval (
>>> functions.connectsSelect(selectEdge, instance, domainSource )) )
>>> schemaEdge : SchemaEdge ( eval (
>>> functions.connectsSchema(schemaEdge, domainSource, schema )) )
>>> source : VisibleThing ( eContainer == container )
>>> target : Frame ( )
>>> instanceSet : SetWire ( eval(functions.connectsSet(instanceSet,
>>> instance, source )) )
>>> detail : DetailWire ( )
>>> eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target ))
>>> pk : DomainAttribute ( eContainer == schema, primaryKey == true
)
>>> not ( queryPk : QueryParameter ( eContainer == target, name ==
pk.name ) )
>>> eval ( handler.veto( detail ))
>>>
>>> then
>>> QueryParameter qp = handler.generatedQueryParameter(detail,
target);
>>> handler.setName(qp, pk.getName());
>>> queue.add(qp, drools); // wraps insert(...)
>>>
>>> end
>>>
>>> I try to order the select statements in an order that will reduce the
>>> size of the cross-product (in theory), but I also try and keep the
>>> rules fairly human readable. I try to avoid comparison operators like
>>> < and>. Analysing a heap dump shows that most of the memory is being
>>> used in StatefulSession.nodeMemories> PrimitiveLongMap.
>>>
>>> I am using a StatefulSession; if I understand correctly, I can't use a
>>> StatelessSession with sequential mode since I am inserting facts as
>>> part of the rules. If I also understand correctly, I'd like the Rete
>>> graph to be tall, rather than wide.
>>>
>>> Some ideas I have thought of include the following:
>>> 1. Creating a separate intermediary meta-model to split up the sizes
>>> of the rules. e.g. instead of (if A and B and C then insert D), using
>>> (if A and B then insert E; if E and C then insert D).
>>> 2. Moving eval() statements directly into the Type(...) selectors.
>>> 3. Removing eval() statements. Would this allow for better indexing by
>>> the Rete algorithm?
>>> 4. Reducing the height, or the width, of the class hierarchy of the
>>> facts. e.g. Removing interfaces or abstract classes to reduce the
>>> possible matches. Would this make a difference?
>>> 5. Conversely, increasing the height, or the width, of the class
>>> hierarchy. e.g. Adding interfaces or abstract classes to reduce field
>>> accessors.
>>> 6. Instead of using EObject.eContainer, creating an explicit
>>> containment property in all of my EObjects.
>>> 7. Creating a DSL that is human-readable, but allows for the
>>> automation of some of these approaches.
>>> 8. Moving all rules into one rule file, or splitting up rules into
>>> smaller files.
>>>
>>> Is there kind of profiler for Drools that will let me see the size (or
>>> the memory usage) of particular rules, or of the memory used after
>>> inference? Ideally I'd use this to profile any changes.
>>>
>>> Thanks for any thoughts or tips! :-)
>>>
>>> Jevon
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
11:33 p.m.
On 16/07/2010 04:16, Jevon Wright wrote:
Hi again,
By removing all of the simple eval()s from my rules, I have cut heap
usage by at least an order of magnitude. However this still isn't enough.
Since I am trying to reduce the cross-product size (as in SQL), I
recall that most SQL implementations have a "DESCRIBE SELECT" query
which provides real-time information about the complexity of a given
SQL query - i.e. the size of the tables, indexes used, and so on. Is
there any such tool available for Drools? Are there any tools which
can provide clues as to which rules are using the most memory?
no, but sounds like
a nice side project :)
Alternatively, I am wondering what kind of benefit I could expect from
using materialized views to create summary tables; that is, deriving
and inserting additional facts. This would allow Drools to rewrite
queries that currently use eval(), but would increase the size of
working memory, so would this actually save heap size?
To what extent does Drools rewrite queries? Is there any documentation
describing the approaches used?
The only rewriting we do is on literal constraints,
moving == ones to
the front, that's it. Also make sure you are using trunk, which is more
memory efficient for modifies:
https://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/job/drools/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/t...
Mark
Any other ideas on how to reduce heap memory usage? I'd appreciate any
ideas :)
Thanks
Jevon
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Jevon Wright <jevon(a)jevon.org
<mailto:jevon@jevon.org>> wrote:
Hi Wolfgang and Mark,
Thank you for your replies! You were correct: my eval() functions
could generally be rewritten into Drools directly.
I had one function "connectsDetail" that was constraining
unidirectional edges, and could be rewritten from:
detail : DetailWire ( )
eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target) )
to:
detail : DetailWire ( from == source, to == target )
Another function, "connects", was constraining bidirectional edges,
and could be rewritten from:
sync : SyncWire( )
eval ( functions.connects(sync, source, target) )
to:
sync : SyncWire( (from == source && to == target) || (from == target
&& to == source) )
Finally, the "veto" function could be rewritten from:
detail : DetailWire ( )
eval ( handler.veto(detail) )
to:
detail : DetailWire ( overridden == false )
I took each of these three changes, and evaluated them separately [1].
I found that:
1. Inlining 'connectsDetail' made a huge difference - 10-30% faster
execution and 50-60% less allocated heap.
2. Inlining 'connects' made very little difference - 10-30% faster
execution, but 0-20% more allocated heap.
3. Inlining 'veto' made no difference - no significant change in
execution speed or allocated heap.
I think I understand why inlining 'connects' would improve heap usage
- because the rules essentially have more conditionals?
I also understand why 'veto' made no difference - for most of my test
models, "overridden" was never true, so adding this conditional was
not making the cross product set any smaller.
Finally, I also tested simply joining all of the rules together into
one file. This happily made no difference at all (although made it
more difficult to edit).
So I think I can safely conclude that eval() should be used as little
as possible - however, this means that the final rules are made more
complicated and less human-readable, so a DSL may be best for my
common rule patterns in the future.
Thanks again!
Jevon
[1]: http://www.jevon.org/wiki/Improving_Drools_Memory_Performance
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Wolfgang Laun
<wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com <mailto:wolfgang.laun@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On 9 July 2010 14:14, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org
<mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org>> wrote:
>> You have many objects there that are not constrained;
>
> I have an inkling that the functions.*() are hiding just these
contraints,
> It's certainly the wrong way, starting with oodles of node
pairs, just to
> pick out connected ones by fishing for the connecting edge. And this
> is worsened by trying to find two such pairs which meet at some
> DomainSource
>
> Guesswork, hopefully educated ;-)
>
> -W
>
>
>> if there are
>> multiple versions of those objects you are going to get massive
amounts
>> of cross products. Think in terms of SQL, each pattern you add
is like
>> an SQL join.
>>
>> Mark
>> On 09/07/2010 09:20, Jevon Wright wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I am working on what appears to be a fairly complex rule base
based on
>>> EMF. The rules aren't operating over a huge number of facts
(less than
>>> 10,000 EObjects) and there aren't too many rules (less than
300), but
>>> I am having a problem with running out of Java heap space (set
at ~400
>>> MB).
>>>
>>> Through investigation, I came to the conclusion that this is
due to
>>> the design of the rules, rather than the number of facts. The
engine
>>> uses less memory inserting many facts that use simple rules,
compared
>>> with inserting few facts that use many rules.
>>>
>>> Can anybody suggest some tips for reducing heap memory usage in
>>> Drools? I don't have a time constraint, only a heap/memory
constraint.
>>> A sample rule in my project looks like this:
>>>
>>> rule "Create QueryParameter for target container of
DetailWire"
>>> when
>>> container : Frame( )
>>> schema : DomainSchema ( )
>>> domainSource : DomainSource ( )
>>> instance : DomainIterator( )
>>> selectEdge : SelectEdge ( eval (
>>> functions.connectsSelect(selectEdge, instance, domainSource )) )
>>> schemaEdge : SchemaEdge ( eval (
>>> functions.connectsSchema(schemaEdge, domainSource, schema )) )
>>> source : VisibleThing ( eContainer == container )
>>> target : Frame ( )
>>> instanceSet : SetWire (
eval(functions.connectsSet(instanceSet,
>>> instance, source )) )
>>> detail : DetailWire ( )
>>> eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target ))
>>> pk : DomainAttribute ( eContainer == schema, primaryKey
== true )
>>> not ( queryPk : QueryParameter ( eContainer == target,
name == pk.name <http://pk.name> ) )
>>> eval ( handler.veto( detail ))
>>>
>>> then
>>> QueryParameter qp =
handler.generatedQueryParameter(detail, target);
>>> handler.setName(qp, pk.getName());
>>> queue.add(qp, drools); // wraps insert(...)
>>>
>>> end
>>>
>>> I try to order the select statements in an order that will
reduce the
>>> size of the cross-product (in theory), but I also try and keep the
>>> rules fairly human readable. I try to avoid comparison
operators like
>>> < and>. Analysing a heap dump shows that most of the memory
is being
>>> used in StatefulSession.nodeMemories> PrimitiveLongMap.
>>>
>>> I am using a StatefulSession; if I understand correctly, I
can't use a
>>> StatelessSession with sequential mode since I am inserting
facts as
>>> part of the rules. If I also understand correctly, I'd like
the Rete
>>> graph to be tall, rather than wide.
>>>
>>> Some ideas I have thought of include the following:
>>> 1. Creating a separate intermediary meta-model to split up the
sizes
>>> of the rules. e.g. instead of (if A and B and C then insert
D), using
>>> (if A and B then insert E; if E and C then insert D).
>>> 2. Moving eval() statements directly into the Type(...) selectors.
>>> 3. Removing eval() statements. Would this allow for better
indexing by
>>> the Rete algorithm?
>>> 4. Reducing the height, or the width, of the class hierarchy
of the
>>> facts. e.g. Removing interfaces or abstract classes to reduce the
>>> possible matches. Would this make a difference?
>>> 5. Conversely, increasing the height, or the width, of the class
>>> hierarchy. e.g. Adding interfaces or abstract classes to
reduce field
>>> accessors.
>>> 6. Instead of using EObject.eContainer, creating an explicit
>>> containment property in all of my EObjects.
>>> 7. Creating a DSL that is human-readable, but allows for the
>>> automation of some of these approaches.
>>> 8. Moving all rules into one rule file, or splitting up rules into
>>> smaller files.
>>>
>>> Is there kind of profiler for Drools that will let me see the
size (or
>>> the memory usage) of particular rules, or of the memory used after
>>> inference? Ideally I'd use this to profile any changes.
>>>
>>> Thanks for any thoughts or tips! :-)
>>>
>>> Jevon
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rules-users mailing list
>>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
2:15 a.m.
Hello Jevon,
you have read Mark's reply, which won't help you much; and neither will this:
Apart from the basic guidelines which you know, there are certain
techniques that
may reduce memory usage. But it's difficult to suggest anything without a more
comprehensive understanding of the fact classes, their relationships and what
the rules must achieve.
In some cases, introducing additional facts to establish (static)
relationships may
help, even though this might require a few additional rules and rewriting the
rules you have now.
-W
2010/7/16 Jevon Wright <jevon(a)jevon.org>:
Hi again,
By removing all of the simple eval()s from my rules, I have cut heap usage
by at least an order of magnitude. However this still isn't enough.
Since I am trying to reduce the cross-product size (as in SQL), I recall
that most SQL implementations have a "DESCRIBE SELECT" query which provides
real-time information about the complexity of a given SQL query - i.e. the
size of the tables, indexes used, and so on. Is there any such tool
available for Drools? Are there any tools which can provide clues as to
which rules are using the most memory?
Alternatively, I am wondering what kind of benefit I could expect from using
materialized views to create summary tables; that is, deriving and inserting
additional facts. This would allow Drools to rewrite queries that currently
use eval(), but would increase the size of working memory, so would this
actually save heap size?
To what extent does Drools rewrite queries? Is there any documentation
describing the approaches used?
Any other ideas on how to reduce heap memory usage? I'd appreciate any ideas
:)
Thanks
Jevon
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Jevon Wright <jevon(a)jevon.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Wolfgang and Mark,
>
> Thank you for your replies! You were correct: my eval() functions
> could generally be rewritten into Drools directly.
>
> I had one function "connectsDetail" that was constraining
> unidirectional edges, and could be rewritten from:
> detail : DetailWire ( )
> eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target) )
>
> to:
> detail : DetailWire ( from == source, to == target )
>
> Another function, "connects", was constraining bidirectional edges,
> and could be rewritten from:
> sync : SyncWire( )
> eval ( functions.connects(sync, source, target) )
>
> to:
> sync : SyncWire( (from == source && to == target) || (from == target
> && to == source) )
>
> Finally, the "veto" function could be rewritten from:
> detail : DetailWire ( )
> eval ( handler.veto(detail) )
>
> to:
> detail : DetailWire ( overridden == false )
>
> I took each of these three changes, and evaluated them separately [1].
> I found that:
>
> 1. Inlining 'connectsDetail' made a huge difference - 10-30% faster
> execution and 50-60% less allocated heap.
> 2. Inlining 'connects' made very little difference - 10-30% faster
> execution, but 0-20% more allocated heap.
> 3. Inlining 'veto' made no difference - no significant change in
> execution speed or allocated heap.
>
> I think I understand why inlining 'connects' would improve heap usage
> - because the rules essentially have more conditionals?
>
> I also understand why 'veto' made no difference - for most of my test
> models, "overridden" was never true, so adding this conditional was
> not making the cross product set any smaller.
>
> Finally, I also tested simply joining all of the rules together into
> one file. This happily made no difference at all (although made it
> more difficult to edit).
>
> So I think I can safely conclude that eval() should be used as little
> as possible - however, this means that the final rules are made more
> complicated and less human-readable, so a DSL may be best for my
> common rule patterns in the future.
>
> Thanks again!
> Jevon
>
> [1]: http://www.jevon.org/wiki/Improving_Drools_Memory_Performance
>
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 9 July 2010 14:14, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
> >> You have many objects there that are not constrained;
> >
> > I have an inkling that the functions.*() are hiding just these
> > contraints,
> > It's certainly the wrong way, starting with oodles of node pairs, just
> > to
> > pick out connected ones by fishing for the connecting edge. And this
> > is worsened by trying to find two such pairs which meet at some
> > DomainSource
> >
> > Guesswork, hopefully educated ;-)
> >
> > -W
> >
> >
> >> if there are
> >> multiple versions of those objects you are going to get massive amounts
> >> of cross products. Think in terms of SQL, each pattern you add is like
> >> an SQL join.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >> On 09/07/2010 09:20, Jevon Wright wrote:
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> I am working on what appears to be a fairly complex rule base based on
> >>> EMF. The rules aren't operating over a huge number of facts (less
than
> >>> 10,000 EObjects) and there aren't too many rules (less than 300),
but
> >>> I am having a problem with running out of Java heap space (set at ~400
> >>> MB).
> >>>
> >>> Through investigation, I came to the conclusion that this is due to
> >>> the design of the rules, rather than the number of facts. The engine
> >>> uses less memory inserting many facts that use simple rules, compared
> >>> with inserting few facts that use many rules.
> >>>
> >>> Can anybody suggest some tips for reducing heap memory usage in
> >>> Drools? I don't have a time constraint, only a heap/memory
constraint.
> >>> A sample rule in my project looks like this:
> >>>
> >>> rule "Create QueryParameter for target container of
DetailWire"
> >>> when
> >>> container : Frame( )
> >>> schema : DomainSchema ( )
> >>> domainSource : DomainSource ( )
> >>> instance : DomainIterator( )
> >>> selectEdge : SelectEdge ( eval (
> >>> functions.connectsSelect(selectEdge, instance, domainSource )) )
> >>> schemaEdge : SchemaEdge ( eval (
> >>> functions.connectsSchema(schemaEdge, domainSource, schema )) )
> >>> source : VisibleThing ( eContainer == container )
> >>> target : Frame ( )
> >>> instanceSet : SetWire ( eval(functions.connectsSet(instanceSet,
> >>> instance, source )) )
> >>> detail : DetailWire ( )
> >>> eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target ))
> >>> pk : DomainAttribute ( eContainer == schema, primaryKey == true
> >>> )
> >>> not ( queryPk : QueryParameter ( eContainer == target, name ==
> >>> pk.name ) )
> >>> eval ( handler.veto( detail ))
> >>>
> >>> then
> >>> QueryParameter qp = handler.generatedQueryParameter(detail,
> >>> target);
> >>> handler.setName(qp, pk.getName());
> >>> queue.add(qp, drools); // wraps insert(...)
> >>>
> >>> end
> >>>
> >>> I try to order the select statements in an order that will reduce the
> >>> size of the cross-product (in theory), but I also try and keep the
> >>> rules fairly human readable. I try to avoid comparison operators like
> >>> < and>. Analysing a heap dump shows that most of the memory is
being
> >>> used in StatefulSession.nodeMemories> PrimitiveLongMap.
> >>>
> >>> I am using a StatefulSession; if I understand correctly, I can't use
a
> >>> StatelessSession with sequential mode since I am inserting facts as
> >>> part of the rules. If I also understand correctly, I'd like the
Rete
> >>> graph to be tall, rather than wide.
> >>>
> >>> Some ideas I have thought of include the following:
> >>> 1. Creating a separate intermediary meta-model to split up the sizes
> >>> of the rules. e.g. instead of (if A and B and C then insert D), using
> >>> (if A and B then insert E; if E and C then insert D).
> >>> 2. Moving eval() statements directly into the Type(...) selectors.
> >>> 3. Removing eval() statements. Would this allow for better indexing by
> >>> the Rete algorithm?
> >>> 4. Reducing the height, or the width, of the class hierarchy of the
> >>> facts. e.g. Removing interfaces or abstract classes to reduce the
> >>> possible matches. Would this make a difference?
> >>> 5. Conversely, increasing the height, or the width, of the class
> >>> hierarchy. e.g. Adding interfaces or abstract classes to reduce field
> >>> accessors.
> >>> 6. Instead of using EObject.eContainer, creating an explicit
> >>> containment property in all of my EObjects.
> >>> 7. Creating a DSL that is human-readable, but allows for the
> >>> automation of some of these approaches.
> >>> 8. Moving all rules into one rule file, or splitting up rules into
> >>> smaller files.
> >>>
> >>> Is there kind of profiler for Drools that will let me see the size (or
> >>> the memory usage) of particular rules, or of the memory used after
> >>> inference? Ideally I'd use this to profile any changes.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for any thoughts or tips! :-)
> >>>
> >>> Jevon
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
2:46 a.m.
detail : DetailWire ( (from == source&& to == target) || (from ==
target&& to == source) )
The above is turned effectively into an MVEL statement, you might get better performance
with a ConditionalElement 'or' as lont as the
two are mutually exclusive:
( DetailWire (from == source, to == target ) or
DetailWire (from == target, to == source) )
I saw you did this:
not ( form : InputForm ( eContainer == container, name == iterator.name ) )
The 'form' is not accessible outside the 'not', and that rule does not
need it.
Is this not a bug. You bind "text". And then i'm not sure what it is you are
doing in the second two rules, but it looks wrong.
text : InputTextField ( eContainer == form, eval
(functions.getAutocompleteInputName(attribute).equals(name)) )
onInput : EventTrigger ( text.onInput == onInput
currentInput : Property ( text.currentInput == currentInput )
It doesn't look like you are updating the session with facts, i.e. it's a
stateless session. See if this helps
KnowledgeBaseConfiguration kconf = KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBaseConfiguration();
kconf.setOption( SequentialOption.YES );
KnowledgeBase kbase = KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBase( kconf );
final StatelessKnowledgeSession ksession = kbase.newStatelessKnowledgeSession();
ksession.execute(....);
In the execute you can provie it with a batch of commands to execute, or just a list of
objects, up to you. see stateless session for
more details.
The SequentialOption may help memory, a small mount, if you aren't doing any working
memory modifications (insert/modify/update/retract).
Mark
On 16/07/2010 04:16, Jevon Wright wrote:
Hi again,
By removing all of the simple eval()s from my rules, I have cut heap
usage by at least an order of magnitude. However this still isn't enough.
Since I am trying to reduce the cross-product size (as in SQL), I
recall that most SQL implementations have a "DESCRIBE SELECT" query
which provides real-time information about the complexity of a given
SQL query - i.e. the size of the tables, indexes used, and so on. Is
there any such tool available for Drools? Are there any tools which
can provide clues as to which rules are using the most memory?
Alternatively, I am wondering what kind of benefit I could expect from
using materialized views to create summary tables; that is, deriving
and inserting additional facts. This would allow Drools to rewrite
queries that currently use eval(), but would increase the size of
working memory, so would this actually save heap size?
To what extent does Drools rewrite queries? Is there any documentation
describing the approaches used?
Any other ideas on how to reduce heap memory usage? I'd appreciate any
ideas :)
Thanks
Jevon
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Jevon Wright <jevon(a)jevon.org
<mailto:jevon@jevon.org>> wrote:
Hi Wolfgang and Mark,
Thank you for your replies! You were correct: my eval() functions
could generally be rewritten into Drools directly.
I had one function "connectsDetail" that was constraining
unidirectional edges, and could be rewritten from:
detail : DetailWire ( )
eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target) )
to:
detail : DetailWire ( from == source, to == target )
Another function, "connects", was constraining bidirectional edges,
and could be rewritten from:
sync : SyncWire( )
eval ( functions.connects(sync, source, target) )
to:
sync : SyncWire( (from == source && to == target) || (from == target
&& to == source) )
Finally, the "veto" function could be rewritten from:
detail : DetailWire ( )
eval ( handler.veto(detail) )
to:
detail : DetailWire ( overridden == false )
I took each of these three changes, and evaluated them separately [1].
I found that:
1. Inlining 'connectsDetail' made a huge difference - 10-30% faster
execution and 50-60% less allocated heap.
2. Inlining 'connects' made very little difference - 10-30% faster
execution, but 0-20% more allocated heap.
3. Inlining 'veto' made no difference - no significant change in
execution speed or allocated heap.
I think I understand why inlining 'connects' would improve heap usage
- because the rules essentially have more conditionals?
I also understand why 'veto' made no difference - for most of my test
models, "overridden" was never true, so adding this conditional was
not making the cross product set any smaller.
Finally, I also tested simply joining all of the rules together into
one file. This happily made no difference at all (although made it
more difficult to edit).
So I think I can safely conclude that eval() should be used as little
as possible - however, this means that the final rules are made more
complicated and less human-readable, so a DSL may be best for my
common rule patterns in the future.
Thanks again!
Jevon
[1]: http://www.jevon.org/wiki/Improving_Drools_Memory_Performance
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Wolfgang Laun
<wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com <mailto:wolfgang.laun@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On 9 July 2010 14:14, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org
<mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org>> wrote:
>> You have many objects there that are not constrained;
>
> I have an inkling that the functions.*() are hiding just these
contraints,
> It's certainly the wrong way, starting with oodles of node
pairs, just to
> pick out connected ones by fishing for the connecting edge. And this
> is worsened by trying to find two such pairs which meet at some
> DomainSource
>
> Guesswork, hopefully educated ;-)
>
> -W
>
>
>> if there are
>> multiple versions of those objects you are going to get massive
amounts
>> of cross products. Think in terms of SQL, each pattern you add
is like
>> an SQL join.
>>
>> Mark
>> On 09/07/2010 09:20, Jevon Wright wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I am working on what appears to be a fairly complex rule base
based on
>>> EMF. The rules aren't operating over a huge number of facts
(less than
>>> 10,000 EObjects) and there aren't too many rules (less than
300), but
>>> I am having a problem with running out of Java heap space (set
at ~400
>>> MB).
>>>
>>> Through investigation, I came to the conclusion that this is
due to
>>> the design of the rules, rather than the number of facts. The
engine
>>> uses less memory inserting many facts that use simple rules,
compared
>>> with inserting few facts that use many rules.
>>>
>>> Can anybody suggest some tips for reducing heap memory usage in
>>> Drools? I don't have a time constraint, only a heap/memory
constraint.
>>> A sample rule in my project looks like this:
>>>
>>> rule "Create QueryParameter for target container of
DetailWire"
>>> when
>>> container : Frame( )
>>> schema : DomainSchema ( )
>>> domainSource : DomainSource ( )
>>> instance : DomainIterator( )
>>> selectEdge : SelectEdge ( eval (
>>> functions.connectsSelect(selectEdge, instance, domainSource )) )
>>> schemaEdge : SchemaEdge ( eval (
>>> functions.connectsSchema(schemaEdge, domainSource, schema )) )
>>> source : VisibleThing ( eContainer == container )
>>> target : Frame ( )
>>> instanceSet : SetWire (
eval(functions.connectsSet(instanceSet,
>>> instance, source )) )
>>> detail : DetailWire ( )
>>> eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target ))
>>> pk : DomainAttribute ( eContainer == schema, primaryKey
== true )
>>> not ( queryPk : QueryParameter ( eContainer == target,
name == pk.name <http://pk.name> ) )
>>> eval ( handler.veto( detail ))
>>>
>>> then
>>> QueryParameter qp =
handler.generatedQueryParameter(detail, target);
>>> handler.setName(qp, pk.getName());
>>> queue.add(qp, drools); // wraps insert(...)
>>>
>>> end
>>>
>>> I try to order the select statements in an order that will
reduce the
>>> size of the cross-product (in theory), but I also try and keep the
>>> rules fairly human readable. I try to avoid comparison
operators like
>>> < and>. Analysing a heap dump shows that most of the memory
is being
>>> used in StatefulSession.nodeMemories> PrimitiveLongMap.
>>>
>>> I am using a StatefulSession; if I understand correctly, I
can't use a
>>> StatelessSession with sequential mode since I am inserting
facts as
>>> part of the rules. If I also understand correctly, I'd like
the Rete
>>> graph to be tall, rather than wide.
>>>
>>> Some ideas I have thought of include the following:
>>> 1. Creating a separate intermediary meta-model to split up the
sizes
>>> of the rules. e.g. instead of (if A and B and C then insert
D), using
>>> (if A and B then insert E; if E and C then insert D).
>>> 2. Moving eval() statements directly into the Type(...) selectors.
>>> 3. Removing eval() statements. Would this allow for better
indexing by
>>> the Rete algorithm?
>>> 4. Reducing the height, or the width, of the class hierarchy
of the
>>> facts. e.g. Removing interfaces or abstract classes to reduce the
>>> possible matches. Would this make a difference?
>>> 5. Conversely, increasing the height, or the width, of the class
>>> hierarchy. e.g. Adding interfaces or abstract classes to
reduce field
>>> accessors.
>>> 6. Instead of using EObject.eContainer, creating an explicit
>>> containment property in all of my EObjects.
>>> 7. Creating a DSL that is human-readable, but allows for the
>>> automation of some of these approaches.
>>> 8. Moving all rules into one rule file, or splitting up rules into
>>> smaller files.
>>>
>>> Is there kind of profiler for Drools that will let me see the
size (or
>>> the memory usage) of particular rules, or of the memory used after
>>> inference? Ideally I'd use this to profile any changes.
>>>
>>> Thanks for any thoughts or tips! :-)
>>>
>>> Jevon
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rules-users mailing list
>>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
10:28 p.m.
Hi Mark and Wolfgang,
Thank you for your replies! Comments below.
A bit of background: I am using Drools to take a given EMF model instance,
and insert new EObjects into the instance, according to the given rules. I
try to perform inference top-down, so there is more than one iteration of
insertion - as objects are inserted, the rules need to be re-evaluated. If I
understand correctly, this means that I can't use a stateless session or the
sequential option, because the working memory is changing with inserted
facts.
The rules don't appear to insert directly, because I insert new objects into
a queue instead (queue.add(object, drools)) - once rule evaluation is
complete, I insert the contents of the queue into the existing working
memory and fire all the rules again. I try to prevent the rules modifying
the working memory directly. This is also why all the rules are of the
format (x, ..., y, not z => insert z).
This approach has a number of benefits. It finds inconsistencies in the
rules and means rules have no order, because inserted facts don't effect the
working memory immediately. It also allows me to detect infinite loops,
without restricting the number of times a rule can fire. This was described
in our 2010 paper [1].
I don't think my implementation of this approach is causing the memory
problem, but I could be wrong.
detail : DetailWire ( (from == source && to == target) || (from == target
&&
to == source) )
The above is turned effectively into an MVEL statement, you might get
better performance with a ConditionalElement 'or' as lont as the
two are mutually exclusive:
( DetailWire (from == source, to == target ) or
DetailWire (from == target, to == source) )
I thought this was the case. However in this case, you can't bind the
variable "detail" (the Drools compiler won't accept the syntax), is this
correct? I think one solution is to split the rule into two separate rules
for each "or" part (thus a DSL) - I don't want to have to expand these
rules
by hand.
And then i'm not sure what it is you are doing in the second two rules, but
it looks wrong.
text : InputTextField ( eContainer == form, eval
(functions.getAutocompleteInputName(attribute).equals(name)) )
onInput : EventTrigger ( text.onInput == onInput )
currentInput : Property ( text.currentInput == currentInput )
The point of this rule is to select something like the following (from an
EMF instance):
<child name="form">
<child xsi:type="InputTextField" name="...">
<onInput xsi:type="EventTrigger" ... />
<currentInput xsi:type="Property" ... />
<events xsi:type="EventTrigger" ... />
<properties xsi:type="Property" ... />
</child>
</child>
I can't use use 'eContainer', because 'text' can also contain
EventTriggers
in 'text.events'. These bound variables are then supposed to be used later
within the rule, either to select other variables, or as part of the created
element.
I am going to try and remove unused bound variables, though. I think I will
try and write a script to analyse the exported XML for the rules to analyse
automatically (I have 264 rules written by hand).
Thanks
Jevon
[1]: J. Wright and J. Dietrich, "Non-Montonic Model Completion in Web
Application Engineering," in Proceedings of the 21st Australian Software
Engineering Conference (ASWEC 2010) <http://aswec2010.massey.ac.nz/>;,
Auckland, New Zealand, 2010. http://openiaml.org/#completion
2010/7/16 Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org>
detail : DetailWire ( (from == source && to == target) ||
(from == target && to == source) )
The above is turned effectively into an MVEL statement, you might get better performance
with a ConditionalElement 'or' as lont as the
two are mutually exclusive:
( DetailWire (from == source, to == target ) or
DetailWire (from == target, to == source) )
I saw you did this:
not ( form : InputForm ( eContainer == container, name == iterator.name ) )
The 'form' is not accessible outside the 'not', and that rule does not
need it.
Is this not a bug. You bind "text". And then i'm not sure what it is you
are doing in the second two rules, but it looks wrong.
text : InputTextField ( eContainer == form, eval
(functions.getAutocompleteInputName(attribute).equals(name)) )
onInput : EventTrigger ( text.onInput == onInput
currentInput : Property ( text.currentInput == currentInput )
It doesn't look like you are updating the session with facts, i.e. it's a
stateless session. See if this helps
KnowledgeBaseConfiguration kconf = KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBaseConfiguration();
kconf.setOption( SequentialOption.YES );
KnowledgeBase kbase = KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBase( kconf );
final StatelessKnowledgeSession ksession = kbase.newStatelessKnowledgeSession();
ksession.execute(....);
In the execute you can provie it with a batch of commands to execute, or just a list of
objects, up to you. see stateless session for
more details.
The SequentialOption may help memory, a small mount, if you aren't doing any working
memory modifications (insert/modify/update/retract).
Mark
On 16/07/2010 04:16, Jevon Wright wrote:
Hi again,
By removing all of the simple eval()s from my rules, I have cut heap usage
by at least an order of magnitude. However this still isn't enough.
Since I am trying to reduce the cross-product size (as in SQL), I recall
that most SQL implementations have a "DESCRIBE SELECT" query which provides
real-time information about the complexity of a given SQL query - i.e. the
size of the tables, indexes used, and so on. Is there any such tool
available for Drools? Are there any tools which can provide clues as to
which rules are using the most memory?
Alternatively, I am wondering what kind of benefit I could expect from
using materialized views to create summary tables; that is, deriving and
inserting additional facts. This would allow Drools to rewrite queries that
currently use eval(), but would increase the size of working memory, so
would this actually save heap size?
To what extent does Drools rewrite queries? Is there any documentation
describing the approaches used?
Any other ideas on how to reduce heap memory usage? I'd appreciate any
ideas :)
Thanks
Jevon
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Jevon Wright <jevon(a)jevon.org> wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang and Mark,
>
> Thank you for your replies! You were correct: my eval() functions
> could generally be rewritten into Drools directly.
>
> I had one function "connectsDetail" that was constraining
> unidirectional edges, and could be rewritten from:
> detail : DetailWire ( )
> eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target) )
>
> to:
> detail : DetailWire ( from == source, to == target )
>
> Another function, "connects", was constraining bidirectional edges,
> and could be rewritten from:
> sync : SyncWire( )
> eval ( functions.connects(sync, source, target) )
>
> to:
> sync : SyncWire( (from == source && to == target) || (from == target
> && to == source) )
>
> Finally, the "veto" function could be rewritten from:
> detail : DetailWire ( )
> eval ( handler.veto(detail) )
>
> to:
> detail : DetailWire ( overridden == false )
>
> I took each of these three changes, and evaluated them separately [1].
> I found that:
>
> 1. Inlining 'connectsDetail' made a huge difference - 10-30% faster
> execution and 50-60% less allocated heap.
> 2. Inlining 'connects' made very little difference - 10-30% faster
> execution, but 0-20% more allocated heap.
> 3. Inlining 'veto' made no difference - no significant change in
> execution speed or allocated heap.
>
> I think I understand why inlining 'connects' would improve heap usage
> - because the rules essentially have more conditionals?
>
> I also understand why 'veto' made no difference - for most of my test
> models, "overridden" was never true, so adding this conditional was
> not making the cross product set any smaller.
>
> Finally, I also tested simply joining all of the rules together into
> one file. This happily made no difference at all (although made it
> more difficult to edit).
>
> So I think I can safely conclude that eval() should be used as little
> as possible - however, this means that the final rules are made more
> complicated and less human-readable, so a DSL may be best for my
> common rule patterns in the future.
>
> Thanks again!
> Jevon
>
> [1]: http://www.jevon.org/wiki/Improving_Drools_Memory_Performance
>
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 9 July 2010 14:14, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
> >> You have many objects there that are not constrained;
> >
> > I have an inkling that the functions.*() are hiding just these
> contraints,
> > It's certainly the wrong way, starting with oodles of node pairs, just
> to
> > pick out connected ones by fishing for the connecting edge. And this
> > is worsened by trying to find two such pairs which meet at some
> > DomainSource
> >
> > Guesswork, hopefully educated ;-)
> >
> > -W
> >
> >
> >> if there are
> >> multiple versions of those objects you are going to get massive amounts
> >> of cross products. Think in terms of SQL, each pattern you add is like
> >> an SQL join.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >> On 09/07/2010 09:20, Jevon Wright wrote:
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> I am working on what appears to be a fairly complex rule base based on
> >>> EMF. The rules aren't operating over a huge number of facts (less
than
> >>> 10,000 EObjects) and there aren't too many rules (less than 300),
but
> >>> I am having a problem with running out of Java heap space (set at ~400
> >>> MB).
> >>>
> >>> Through investigation, I came to the conclusion that this is due to
> >>> the design of the rules, rather than the number of facts. The engine
> >>> uses less memory inserting many facts that use simple rules, compared
> >>> with inserting few facts that use many rules.
> >>>
> >>> Can anybody suggest some tips for reducing heap memory usage in
> >>> Drools? I don't have a time constraint, only a heap/memory
constraint.
> >>> A sample rule in my project looks like this:
> >>>
> >>> rule "Create QueryParameter for target container of
DetailWire"
> >>> when
> >>> container : Frame( )
> >>> schema : DomainSchema ( )
> >>> domainSource : DomainSource ( )
> >>> instance : DomainIterator( )
> >>> selectEdge : SelectEdge ( eval (
> >>> functions.connectsSelect(selectEdge, instance, domainSource )) )
> >>> schemaEdge : SchemaEdge ( eval (
> >>> functions.connectsSchema(schemaEdge, domainSource, schema )) )
> >>> source : VisibleThing ( eContainer == container )
> >>> target : Frame ( )
> >>> instanceSet : SetWire ( eval(functions.connectsSet(instanceSet,
> >>> instance, source )) )
> >>> detail : DetailWire ( )
> >>> eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target ))
> >>> pk : DomainAttribute ( eContainer == schema, primaryKey == true
> )
> >>> not ( queryPk : QueryParameter ( eContainer == target, name ==
> pk.name ) )
> >>> eval ( handler.veto( detail ))
> >>>
> >>> then
> >>> QueryParameter qp = handler.generatedQueryParameter(detail,
> target);
> >>> handler.setName(qp, pk.getName());
> >>> queue.add(qp, drools); // wraps insert(...)
> >>>
> >>> end
> >>>
> >>> I try to order the select statements in an order that will reduce the
> >>> size of the cross-product (in theory), but I also try and keep the
> >>> rules fairly human readable. I try to avoid comparison operators like
> >>> < and>. Analysing a heap dump shows that most of the memory is
being
> >>> used in StatefulSession.nodeMemories> PrimitiveLongMap.
> >>>
> >>> I am using a StatefulSession; if I understand correctly, I can't use
a
> >>> StatelessSession with sequential mode since I am inserting facts as
> >>> part of the rules. If I also understand correctly, I'd like the
Rete
> >>> graph to be tall, rather than wide.
> >>>
> >>> Some ideas I have thought of include the following:
> >>> 1. Creating a separate intermediary meta-model to split up the sizes
> >>> of the rules. e.g. instead of (if A and B and C then insert D), using
> >>> (if A and B then insert E; if E and C then insert D).
> >>> 2. Moving eval() statements directly into the Type(...) selectors.
> >>> 3. Removing eval() statements. Would this allow for better indexing by
> >>> the Rete algorithm?
> >>> 4. Reducing the height, or the width, of the class hierarchy of the
> >>> facts. e.g. Removing interfaces or abstract classes to reduce the
> >>> possible matches. Would this make a difference?
> >>> 5. Conversely, increasing the height, or the width, of the class
> >>> hierarchy. e.g. Adding interfaces or abstract classes to reduce field
> >>> accessors.
> >>> 6. Instead of using EObject.eContainer, creating an explicit
> >>> containment property in all of my EObjects.
> >>> 7. Creating a DSL that is human-readable, but allows for the
> >>> automation of some of these approaches.
> >>> 8. Moving all rules into one rule file, or splitting up rules into
> >>> smaller files.
> >>>
> >>> Is there kind of profiler for Drools that will let me see the size (or
> >>> the memory usage) of particular rules, or of the memory used after
> >>> inference? Ideally I'd use this to profile any changes.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for any thoughts or tips! :-)
> >>>
> >>> Jevon
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing
listrules-users@lists.jboss.orghttps://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
10:46 p.m.
On 22/07/2010 03:28, Jevon Wright wrote:
Hi Mark and Wolfgang,
Thank you for your replies! Comments below.
A bit of background: I am using Drools to take a given EMF model
instance, and insert new EObjects into the instance, according to the
given rules. I try to perform inference top-down, so there is more
than one iteration of insertion - as objects are inserted, the rules
need to be re-evaluated. If I understand correctly, this means that I
can't use a stateless session or the sequential option, because the
working memory is changing with inserted facts.
The rules don't appear to insert directly, because I insert new
objects into a queue instead (queue.add(object, drools)) - once rule
evaluation is complete, I insert the contents of the queue into the
existing working memory and fire all the rules again. I try to prevent
the rules modifying the working memory directly. This is also why all
the rules are of the format (x, ..., y, not z => insert z).
This approach has a number of benefits. It finds inconsistencies in
the rules and means rules have no order, because inserted facts don't
effect the working memory immediately. It also allows me to detect
infinite loops, without restricting the number of times a rule can
fire. This was described in our 2010 paper [1].
I don't think my implementation of this approach is causing the memory
problem, but I could be wrong.
detail : DetailWire ( (from == source && to == target) || (from ==
target && to == source) )
The above is turned effectively into an MVEL statement, you might
get better performance with a ConditionalElement 'or' as lont as the
two are mutually exclusive:
( DetailWire (from == source, to == target ) or
DetailWire (from == target, to == source) )
I thought this was the case. However in this case, you can't bind the
variable "detail" (the Drools compiler won't accept the syntax), is
this correct? I think one solution is to split the rule into two
separate rules for each "or" part (thus a DSL) - I don't want to have
to expand these rules by hand.
( $d : DetailWire (from == source, to == target )
or
$d : DetailWire (from == target, to == source) )
is valid
And then i'm not sure what it is you are doing in the second two
rules, but it looks wrong.
text : InputTextField ( eContainer == form, eval
(functions.getAutocompleteInputName(attribute).equals(name)) )
onInput : EventTrigger ( text.onInput == onInput )
currentInput : Property ( text.currentInput == currentInput )
The point of this rule is to select something like the following (from
an EMF instance):
<child name="form">
<child xsi:type="InputTextField" name="...">
<onInput xsi:type="EventTrigger" ... />
<currentInput xsi:type="Property" ... />
<events xsi:type="EventTrigger" ... />
<properties xsi:type="Property" ... />
</child>
</child>
IEventTrigger ( text.onInput == onInput ) - is the text here the
bound
variable text, or a field on EventTrigger? the logic isn't very clear.
What you have written in java would look like
eventTrigger.getText().getOnInput().equals( eventTrigger)
Is that what you where expecting? that's why we often use the $ prefix
to differentiate fields from variables.
I can't use use 'eContainer', because 'text' can also contain
EventTriggers in 'text.events'. These bound variables are then
supposed to be used later within the rule, either to select other
variables, or as part of the created element.
I am going to try and remove unused bound variables, though. I think I
will try and write a script to analyse the exported XML for the rules
to analyse automatically (I have 264 rules written by hand).
Thanks
Jevon
[1]: J. Wright and J. Dietrich, "Non-Montonic Model Completion in Web
Application Engineering," in Proceedings of the 21st Australian
Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC 2010)
<http://aswec2010.massey.ac.nz/>;, Auckland, New Zealand, 2010.
http://openiaml.org/#completion
2010/7/16 Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org
<mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org>>
detail : DetailWire ( (from == source&& to == target) || (from ==
target&& to == source) )
The above is turned effectively into an MVEL statement, you might get better
performance with a ConditionalElement 'or' as lont as the
two are mutually exclusive:
( DetailWire (from == source, to == target ) or
DetailWire (from == target, to == source) )
I saw you did this:
not ( form : InputForm ( eContainer == container, name ==iterator.name
<http://iterator.name> ) )
The 'form' is not accessible outside the 'not', and that rule does
not need it.
Is this not a bug. You bind "text". And then i'm not sure what it is
you are doing in the second two rules, but it looks wrong.
text : InputTextField ( eContainer == form, eval
(functions.getAutocompleteInputName(attribute).equals(name)) )
onInput : EventTrigger ( text.onInput == onInput
currentInput : Property ( text.currentInput == currentInput )
It doesn't look like you are updating the session with facts, i.e. it's a
stateless session. See if this helps
KnowledgeBaseConfiguration kconf =
KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBaseConfiguration();
kconf.setOption( SequentialOption.YES );
KnowledgeBase kbase = KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBase( kconf );
final StatelessKnowledgeSession ksession = kbase.newStatelessKnowledgeSession();
ksession.execute(....);
In the execute you can provie it with a batch of commands to execute, or just a list
of objects, up to you. see stateless session for
more details.
The SequentialOption may help memory, a small mount, if you aren't doing any
working memory modifications (insert/modify/update/retract).
Mark
On 16/07/2010 04:16, Jevon Wright wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> By removing all of the simple eval()s from my rules, I have cut
> heap usage by at least an order of magnitude. However this still
> isn't enough.
>
> Since I am trying to reduce the cross-product size (as in SQL), I
> recall that most SQL implementations have a "DESCRIBE SELECT"
> query which provides real-time information about the complexity
> of a given SQL query - i.e. the size of the tables, indexes used,
> and so on. Is there any such tool available for Drools? Are there
> any tools which can provide clues as to which rules are using the
> most memory?
>
> Alternatively, I am wondering what kind of benefit I could expect
> from using materialized views to create summary tables; that is,
> deriving and inserting additional facts. This would allow Drools
> to rewrite queries that currently use eval(), but would increase
> the size of working memory, so would this actually save heap size?
>
> To what extent does Drools rewrite queries? Is there any
> documentation describing the approaches used?
>
> Any other ideas on how to reduce heap memory usage? I'd
> appreciate any ideas :)
>
> Thanks
> Jevon
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Jevon Wright <jevon(a)jevon.org
> <mailto:jevon@jevon.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Wolfgang and Mark,
>
> Thank you for your replies! You were correct: my eval() functions
> could generally be rewritten into Drools directly.
>
> I had one function "connectsDetail" that was constraining
> unidirectional edges, and could be rewritten from:
> detail : DetailWire ( )
> eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target) )
>
> to:
> detail : DetailWire ( from == source, to == target )
>
> Another function, "connects", was constraining bidirectional
> edges,
> and could be rewritten from:
> sync : SyncWire( )
> eval ( functions.connects(sync, source, target) )
>
> to:
> sync : SyncWire( (from == source && to == target) || (from
> == target
> && to == source) )
>
> Finally, the "veto" function could be rewritten from:
> detail : DetailWire ( )
> eval ( handler.veto(detail) )
>
> to:
> detail : DetailWire ( overridden == false )
>
> I took each of these three changes, and evaluated them
> separately [1].
> I found that:
>
> 1. Inlining 'connectsDetail' made a huge difference - 10-30%
> faster
> execution and 50-60% less allocated heap.
> 2. Inlining 'connects' made very little difference - 10-30%
> faster
> execution, but 0-20% more allocated heap.
> 3. Inlining 'veto' made no difference - no significant change in
> execution speed or allocated heap.
>
> I think I understand why inlining 'connects' would improve
> heap usage
> - because the rules essentially have more conditionals?
>
> I also understand why 'veto' made no difference - for most of
> my test
> models, "overridden" was never true, so adding this
> conditional was
> not making the cross product set any smaller.
>
> Finally, I also tested simply joining all of the rules
> together into
> one file. This happily made no difference at all (although
> made it
> more difficult to edit).
>
> So I think I can safely conclude that eval() should be used
> as little
> as possible - however, this means that the final rules are
> made more
> complicated and less human-readable, so a DSL may be best for my
> common rule patterns in the future.
>
> Thanks again!
> Jevon
>
> [1]:
> http://www.jevon.org/wiki/Improving_Drools_Memory_Performance
>
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Wolfgang Laun
> <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com <mailto:wolfgang.laun@gmail.com>>
wrote:
> > On 9 July 2010 14:14, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org
> <mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org>> wrote:
> >> You have many objects there that are not constrained;
> >
> > I have an inkling that the functions.*() are hiding just
> these contraints,
> > It's certainly the wrong way, starting with oodles of node
> pairs, just to
> > pick out connected ones by fishing for the connecting edge.
> And this
> > is worsened by trying to find two such pairs which meet at some
> > DomainSource
> >
> > Guesswork, hopefully educated ;-)
> >
> > -W
> >
> >
> >> if there are
> >> multiple versions of those objects you are going to get
> massive amounts
> >> of cross products. Think in terms of SQL, each pattern you
> add is like
> >> an SQL join.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >> On 09/07/2010 09:20, Jevon Wright wrote:
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> I am working on what appears to be a fairly complex rule
> base based on
> >>> EMF. The rules aren't operating over a huge number of
> facts (less than
> >>> 10,000 EObjects) and there aren't too many rules (less
> than 300), but
> >>> I am having a problem with running out of Java heap space
> (set at ~400
> >>> MB).
> >>>
> >>> Through investigation, I came to the conclusion that this
> is due to
> >>> the design of the rules, rather than the number of facts.
> The engine
> >>> uses less memory inserting many facts that use simple
> rules, compared
> >>> with inserting few facts that use many rules.
> >>>
> >>> Can anybody suggest some tips for reducing heap memory
> usage in
> >>> Drools? I don't have a time constraint, only a
> heap/memory constraint.
> >>> A sample rule in my project looks like this:
> >>>
> >>> rule "Create QueryParameter for target container of
> DetailWire"
> >>> when
> >>> container : Frame( )
> >>> schema : DomainSchema ( )
> >>> domainSource : DomainSource ( )
> >>> instance : DomainIterator( )
> >>> selectEdge : SelectEdge ( eval (
> >>> functions.connectsSelect(selectEdge, instance,
> domainSource )) )
> >>> schemaEdge : SchemaEdge ( eval (
> >>> functions.connectsSchema(schemaEdge, domainSource, schema
> )) )
> >>> source : VisibleThing ( eContainer == container )
> >>> target : Frame ( )
> >>> instanceSet : SetWire (
> eval(functions.connectsSet(instanceSet,
> >>> instance, source )) )
> >>> detail : DetailWire ( )
> >>> eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source,
> target ))
> >>> pk : DomainAttribute ( eContainer == schema,
> primaryKey == true )
> >>> not ( queryPk : QueryParameter ( eContainer ==
> target, name == pk.name <http://pk.name> ) )
> >>> eval ( handler.veto( detail ))
> >>>
> >>> then
> >>> QueryParameter qp =
> handler.generatedQueryParameter(detail, target);
> >>> handler.setName(qp, pk.getName());
> >>> queue.add(qp, drools); // wraps insert(...)
> >>>
> >>> end
> >>>
> >>> I try to order the select statements in an order that
> will reduce the
> >>> size of the cross-product (in theory), but I also try and
> keep the
> >>> rules fairly human readable. I try to avoid comparison
> operators like
> >>> < and>. Analysing a heap dump shows that most of the
> memory is being
> >>> used in StatefulSession.nodeMemories> PrimitiveLongMap.
> >>>
> >>> I am using a StatefulSession; if I understand correctly,
> I can't use a
> >>> StatelessSession with sequential mode since I am
> inserting facts as
> >>> part of the rules. If I also understand correctly, I'd
> like the Rete
> >>> graph to be tall, rather than wide.
> >>>
> >>> Some ideas I have thought of include the following:
> >>> 1. Creating a separate intermediary meta-model to split
> up the sizes
> >>> of the rules. e.g. instead of (if A and B and C then
> insert D), using
> >>> (if A and B then insert E; if E and C then insert D).
> >>> 2. Moving eval() statements directly into the Type(...)
> selectors.
> >>> 3. Removing eval() statements. Would this allow for
> better indexing by
> >>> the Rete algorithm?
> >>> 4. Reducing the height, or the width, of the class
> hierarchy of the
> >>> facts. e.g. Removing interfaces or abstract classes to
> reduce the
> >>> possible matches. Would this make a difference?
> >>> 5. Conversely, increasing the height, or the width, of
> the class
> >>> hierarchy. e.g. Adding interfaces or abstract classes to
> reduce field
> >>> accessors.
> >>> 6. Instead of using EObject.eContainer, creating an explicit
> >>> containment property in all of my EObjects.
> >>> 7. Creating a DSL that is human-readable, but allows for the
> >>> automation of some of these approaches.
> >>> 8. Moving all rules into one rule file, or splitting up
> rules into
> >>> smaller files.
> >>>
> >>> Is there kind of profiler for Drools that will let me see
> the size (or
> >>> the memory usage) of particular rules, or of the memory
> used after
> >>> inference? Ideally I'd use this to profile any changes.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for any thoughts or tips! :-)
> >>>
> >>> Jevon
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> rules-users mailing list
> >>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rules-users mailing list
> >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
11:05 p.m.
HI Mark,
IEventTrigger ( text.onInput == onInput ) - is the text here the bound
variable text, or a field on EventTrigger? the logic isn't very
clear. What
you have written in java would look like
eventTrigger.getText().getOnInput().equals( eventTrigger)
Is that what you where expecting? that's why we often use the $ prefix
to differentiate fields from variables.
EventTrigger doesn't have a field "text", so I think it uses the bound
variable instead and actually written as:
text.getOnInput().equals( eventTrigger );
I use variables very sparingly in my rules, but I didn't realise that using
'$' as a prefix was optional. So using '$onInput' rather than
'onInput'
would make no difference, except for readability?
Jevon
2010/7/22 Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org>
On 22/07/2010 03:28, Jevon Wright wrote:
Hi Mark and Wolfgang,
Thank you for your replies! Comments below.
A bit of background: I am using Drools to take a given EMF model instance,
and insert new EObjects into the instance, according to the given rules. I
try to perform inference top-down, so there is more than one iteration of
insertion - as objects are inserted, the rules need to be re-evaluated. If I
understand correctly, this means that I can't use a stateless session or the
sequential option, because the working memory is changing with inserted
facts.
The rules don't appear to insert directly, because I insert new objects
into a queue instead (queue.add(object, drools)) - once rule evaluation is
complete, I insert the contents of the queue into the existing working
memory and fire all the rules again. I try to prevent the rules modifying
the working memory directly. This is also why all the rules are of the
format (x, ..., y, not z => insert z).
This approach has a number of benefits. It finds inconsistencies in the
rules and means rules have no order, because inserted facts don't effect the
working memory immediately. It also allows me to detect infinite loops,
without restricting the number of times a rule can fire. This was described
in our 2010 paper [1].
I don't think my implementation of this approach is causing the memory
problem, but I could be wrong.
detail : DetailWire ( (from == source && to == target) || (from == target
> && to == source) )
> The above is turned effectively into an MVEL statement, you might get
> better performance with a ConditionalElement 'or' as lont as the
> two are mutually exclusive:
>
> ( DetailWire (from == source, to == target ) or
> DetailWire (from == target, to == source) )
>
I thought this was the case. However in this case, you can't bind the
variable "detail" (the Drools compiler won't accept the syntax), is this
correct? I think one solution is to split the rule into two separate rules
for each "or" part (thus a DSL) - I don't want to have to expand these
rules
by hand.
( $d : DetailWire (from == source, to == target ) or
$d : DetailWire (from == target, to == source) )
is valid
And then i'm not sure what it is you are doing in the second two rules, but
> it looks wrong.
> text : InputTextField ( eContainer == form, eval
> (functions.getAutocompleteInputName(attribute).equals(name)) )
> onInput : EventTrigger ( text.onInput == onInput )
> currentInput : Property ( text.currentInput == currentInput )
>
The point of this rule is to select something like the following (from an
EMF instance):
<child name="form">
<child xsi:type="InputTextField" name="...">
<onInput xsi:type="EventTrigger" ... />
<currentInput xsi:type="Property" ... />
<events xsi:type="EventTrigger" ... />
<properties xsi:type="Property" ... />
</child>
</child>
IEventTrigger ( text.onInput == onInput ) - is the text here the bound
variable text, or a field on EventTrigger? the logic isn't very clear. What
you have written in java would look like
eventTrigger.getText().getOnInput().equals( eventTrigger)
Is that what you where expecting? that's why we often use the $ prefix to
differentiate fields from variables.
I can't use use 'eContainer', because 'text' can also contain
EventTriggers
in 'text.events'. These bound variables are then supposed to be used later
within the rule, either to select other variables, or as part of the created
element.
I am going to try and remove unused bound variables, though. I think I will
try and write a script to analyse the exported XML for the rules to analyse
automatically (I have 264 rules written by hand).
Thanks
Jevon
[1]: J. Wright and J. Dietrich, "Non-Montonic Model Completion in Web
Application Engineering," in Proceedings of the 21st Australian Software
Engineering Conference (ASWEC 2010) <http://aswec2010.massey.ac.nz/>;,
Auckland, New Zealand, 2010. http://openiaml.org/#completion
2010/7/16 Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org>
> detail : DetailWire ( (from == source && to == target) || (from == target
&& to == source) )
> The above is turned effectively into an MVEL statement, you might get better
performance with a ConditionalElement 'or' as lont as the
> two are mutually exclusive:
>
> ( DetailWire (from == source, to == target ) or
> DetailWire (from == target, to == source) )
>
> I saw you did this:
> not ( form : InputForm ( eContainer == container, name == iterator.name ) )
>
> The 'form' is not accessible outside the 'not', and that rule does
not need it.
>
> Is this not a bug. You bind "text". And then i'm not sure what it is
you are doing in the second two rules, but it looks wrong.
> text : InputTextField ( eContainer == form, eval
(functions.getAutocompleteInputName(attribute).equals(name)) )
> onInput : EventTrigger ( text.onInput == onInput
> currentInput : Property ( text.currentInput == currentInput )
>
> It doesn't look like you are updating the session with facts, i.e. it's a
stateless session. See if this helps
>
> KnowledgeBaseConfiguration kconf =
KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBaseConfiguration();
> kconf.setOption( SequentialOption.YES );
>
> KnowledgeBase kbase = KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBase( kconf );
> final StatelessKnowledgeSession ksession = kbase.newStatelessKnowledgeSession();
> ksession.execute(....);
>
> In the execute you can provie it with a batch of commands to execute, or just a list
of objects, up to you. see stateless session for
> more details.
>
> The SequentialOption may help memory, a small mount, if you aren't doing any
working memory modifications (insert/modify/update/retract).
>
> Mark
>
>
> On 16/07/2010 04:16, Jevon Wright wrote:
>
> Hi again,
>
> By removing all of the simple eval()s from my rules, I have cut heap usage
> by at least an order of magnitude. However this still isn't enough.
>
> Since I am trying to reduce the cross-product size (as in SQL), I recall
> that most SQL implementations have a "DESCRIBE SELECT" query which
provides
> real-time information about the complexity of a given SQL query - i.e. the
> size of the tables, indexes used, and so on. Is there any such tool
> available for Drools? Are there any tools which can provide clues as to
> which rules are using the most memory?
>
> Alternatively, I am wondering what kind of benefit I could expect from
> using materialized views to create summary tables; that is, deriving and
> inserting additional facts. This would allow Drools to rewrite queries that
> currently use eval(), but would increase the size of working memory, so
> would this actually save heap size?
>
> To what extent does Drools rewrite queries? Is there any documentation
> describing the approaches used?
>
> Any other ideas on how to reduce heap memory usage? I'd appreciate any
> ideas :)
>
> Thanks
> Jevon
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Jevon Wright <jevon(a)jevon.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Wolfgang and Mark,
>>
>> Thank you for your replies! You were correct: my eval() functions
>> could generally be rewritten into Drools directly.
>>
>> I had one function "connectsDetail" that was constraining
>> unidirectional edges, and could be rewritten from:
>> detail : DetailWire ( )
>> eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target) )
>>
>> to:
>> detail : DetailWire ( from == source, to == target )
>>
>> Another function, "connects", was constraining bidirectional edges,
>> and could be rewritten from:
>> sync : SyncWire( )
>> eval ( functions.connects(sync, source, target) )
>>
>> to:
>> sync : SyncWire( (from == source && to == target) || (from == target
>> && to == source) )
>>
>> Finally, the "veto" function could be rewritten from:
>> detail : DetailWire ( )
>> eval ( handler.veto(detail) )
>>
>> to:
>> detail : DetailWire ( overridden == false )
>>
>> I took each of these three changes, and evaluated them separately [1].
>> I found that:
>>
>> 1. Inlining 'connectsDetail' made a huge difference - 10-30% faster
>> execution and 50-60% less allocated heap.
>> 2. Inlining 'connects' made very little difference - 10-30% faster
>> execution, but 0-20% more allocated heap.
>> 3. Inlining 'veto' made no difference - no significant change in
>> execution speed or allocated heap.
>>
>> I think I understand why inlining 'connects' would improve heap usage
>> - because the rules essentially have more conditionals?
>>
>> I also understand why 'veto' made no difference - for most of my test
>> models, "overridden" was never true, so adding this conditional was
>> not making the cross product set any smaller.
>>
>> Finally, I also tested simply joining all of the rules together into
>> one file. This happily made no difference at all (although made it
>> more difficult to edit).
>>
>> So I think I can safely conclude that eval() should be used as little
>> as possible - however, this means that the final rules are made more
>> complicated and less human-readable, so a DSL may be best for my
>> common rule patterns in the future.
>>
>> Thanks again!
>> Jevon
>>
>> [1]: http://www.jevon.org/wiki/Improving_Drools_Memory_Performance
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On 9 July 2010 14:14, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
>> >> You have many objects there that are not constrained;
>> >
>> > I have an inkling that the functions.*() are hiding just these
>> contraints,
>> > It's certainly the wrong way, starting with oodles of node pairs, just
>> to
>> > pick out connected ones by fishing for the connecting edge. And this
>> > is worsened by trying to find two such pairs which meet at some
>> > DomainSource
>> >
>> > Guesswork, hopefully educated ;-)
>> >
>> > -W
>> >
>> >
>> >> if there are
>> >> multiple versions of those objects you are going to get massive
>> amounts
>> >> of cross products. Think in terms of SQL, each pattern you add is like
>> >> an SQL join.
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>> >> On 09/07/2010 09:20, Jevon Wright wrote:
>> >>> Hi everyone,
>> >>>
>> >>> I am working on what appears to be a fairly complex rule base based
>> on
>> >>> EMF. The rules aren't operating over a huge number of facts
(less
>> than
>> >>> 10,000 EObjects) and there aren't too many rules (less than
300), but
>> >>> I am having a problem with running out of Java heap space (set at
>> ~400
>> >>> MB).
>> >>>
>> >>> Through investigation, I came to the conclusion that this is due to
>> >>> the design of the rules, rather than the number of facts. The
engine
>> >>> uses less memory inserting many facts that use simple rules,
compared
>> >>> with inserting few facts that use many rules.
>> >>>
>> >>> Can anybody suggest some tips for reducing heap memory usage in
>> >>> Drools? I don't have a time constraint, only a heap/memory
>> constraint.
>> >>> A sample rule in my project looks like this:
>> >>>
>> >>> rule "Create QueryParameter for target container of
DetailWire"
>> >>> when
>> >>> container : Frame( )
>> >>> schema : DomainSchema ( )
>> >>> domainSource : DomainSource ( )
>> >>> instance : DomainIterator( )
>> >>> selectEdge : SelectEdge ( eval (
>> >>> functions.connectsSelect(selectEdge, instance, domainSource )) )
>> >>> schemaEdge : SchemaEdge ( eval (
>> >>> functions.connectsSchema(schemaEdge, domainSource, schema )) )
>> >>> source : VisibleThing ( eContainer == container )
>> >>> target : Frame ( )
>> >>> instanceSet : SetWire (
>> eval(functions.connectsSet(instanceSet,
>> >>> instance, source )) )
>> >>> detail : DetailWire ( )
>> >>> eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target ))
>> >>> pk : DomainAttribute ( eContainer == schema, primaryKey ==
>> true )
>> >>> not ( queryPk : QueryParameter ( eContainer == target, name
==
>> pk.name ) )
>> >>> eval ( handler.veto( detail ))
>> >>>
>> >>> then
>> >>> QueryParameter qp = handler.generatedQueryParameter(detail,
>> target);
>> >>> handler.setName(qp, pk.getName());
>> >>> queue.add(qp, drools); // wraps insert(...)
>> >>>
>> >>> end
>> >>>
>> >>> I try to order the select statements in an order that will reduce
the
>> >>> size of the cross-product (in theory), but I also try and keep the
>> >>> rules fairly human readable. I try to avoid comparison operators
like
>> >>> < and>. Analysing a heap dump shows that most of the memory
is being
>> >>> used in StatefulSession.nodeMemories> PrimitiveLongMap.
>> >>>
>> >>> I am using a StatefulSession; if I understand correctly, I can't
use
>> a
>> >>> StatelessSession with sequential mode since I am inserting facts as
>> >>> part of the rules. If I also understand correctly, I'd like the
Rete
>> >>> graph to be tall, rather than wide.
>> >>>
>> >>> Some ideas I have thought of include the following:
>> >>> 1. Creating a separate intermediary meta-model to split up the
sizes
>> >>> of the rules. e.g. instead of (if A and B and C then insert D),
using
>> >>> (if A and B then insert E; if E and C then insert D).
>> >>> 2. Moving eval() statements directly into the Type(...) selectors.
>> >>> 3. Removing eval() statements. Would this allow for better indexing
>> by
>> >>> the Rete algorithm?
>> >>> 4. Reducing the height, or the width, of the class hierarchy of the
>> >>> facts. e.g. Removing interfaces or abstract classes to reduce the
>> >>> possible matches. Would this make a difference?
>> >>> 5. Conversely, increasing the height, or the width, of the class
>> >>> hierarchy. e.g. Adding interfaces or abstract classes to reduce
field
>> >>> accessors.
>> >>> 6. Instead of using EObject.eContainer, creating an explicit
>> >>> containment property in all of my EObjects.
>> >>> 7. Creating a DSL that is human-readable, but allows for the
>> >>> automation of some of these approaches.
>> >>> 8. Moving all rules into one rule file, or splitting up rules into
>> >>> smaller files.
>> >>>
>> >>> Is there kind of profiler for Drools that will let me see the size
>> (or
>> >>> the memory usage) of particular rules, or of the memory used after
>> >>> inference? Ideally I'd use this to profile any changes.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for any thoughts or tips! :-)
>> >>>
>> >>> Jevon
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> 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
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rules-users mailing list
>> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> >
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing
listrules-users@lists.jboss.orghttps://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
>
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing
listrules-users@lists.jboss.orghttps://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
11:49 p.m.
On 22/07/2010 04:05, Jevon Wright wrote:
HI Mark,
IEventTrigger ( text.onInput == onInput ) - is the text here
the bound variable text, or a field on EventTrigger? the logic
isn't very clear. What you have written in java would look like
eventTrigger.getText().getOnInput().equals( eventTrigger)
Is that what you where expecting? that's why we often use the
$ prefix to differentiate fields from variables.
EventTrigger doesn't have a field "text", so I think it uses the bound
variable instead and actually written as:
text.getOnInput().equals( eventTrigger );
I use variables very sparingly in my rules, but I didn't realise that
using '$' as a prefix was optional. So using '$onInput' rather than
'onInput' would make no difference, except for readability?
I'm
surprised that parses, it's almost definitely wrong then and should
throw up an error; please open a jira for that so it can be fixed later.
You should wrap it with an eval:
onInput : IEventTrigger ( eval( text.onInput == onInput ) )
Or better still write it like this:
IEventTrigger( this == text.onInput )
Mark
Jevon
2010/7/22 Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org
<mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org>>
On 22/07/2010 03:28, Jevon Wright wrote:
> Hi Mark and Wolfgang,
>
> Thank you for your replies! Comments below.
>
> A bit of background: I am using Drools to take a given EMF model
> instance, and insert new EObjects into the instance, according to
> the given rules. I try to perform inference top-down, so there is
> more than one iteration of insertion - as objects are inserted,
> the rules need to be re-evaluated. If I understand correctly,
> this means that I can't use a stateless session or the sequential
> option, because the working memory is changing with inserted facts.
>
> The rules don't appear to insert directly, because I insert new
> objects into a queue instead (queue.add(object, drools)) - once
> rule evaluation is complete, I insert the contents of the queue
> into the existing working memory and fire all the rules again. I
> try to prevent the rules modifying the working memory directly.
> This is also why all the rules are of the format (x, ..., y, not
> z => insert z).
>
> This approach has a number of benefits. It finds inconsistencies
> in the rules and means rules have no order, because inserted
> facts don't effect the working memory immediately. It also allows
> me to detect infinite loops, without restricting the number of
> times a rule can fire. This was described in our 2010 paper [1].
>
> I don't think my implementation of this approach is causing the
> memory problem, but I could be wrong.
>
> detail : DetailWire ( (from == source && to == target) ||
> (from == target && to == source) )
> The above is turned effectively into an MVEL statement, you
> might get better performance with a ConditionalElement 'or'
> as lont as the
> two are mutually exclusive:
>
> ( DetailWire (from == source, to == target ) or
> DetailWire (from == target, to == source) )
>
>
> I thought this was the case. However in this case, you can't bind
> the variable "detail" (the Drools compiler won't accept the
> syntax), is this correct? I think one solution is to split the
> rule into two separate rules for each "or" part (thus a DSL) - I
> don't want to have to expand these rules by hand.
( $d : DetailWire (from == source, to == target ) or
$d : DetailWire (from == target, to == source) )
is valid
>
> And then i'm not sure what it is you are doing in the second
> two rules, but it looks wrong.
> text : InputTextField ( eContainer == form, eval
> (functions.getAutocompleteInputName(attribute).equals(name)) )
> onInput : EventTrigger ( text.onInput == onInput )
> currentInput : Property ( text.currentInput == currentInput )
>
>
> The point of this rule is to select something like the following
> (from an EMF instance):
>
> <child name="form">
> <child xsi:type="InputTextField" name="...">
> <onInput xsi:type="EventTrigger" ... />
> <currentInput xsi:type="Property" ... />
> <events xsi:type="EventTrigger" ... />
> <properties xsi:type="Property" ... />
> </child>
> </child>
IEventTrigger ( text.onInput == onInput ) - is the text here the
bound variable text, or a field on EventTrigger? the logic isn't
very clear. What you have written in java would look like
eventTrigger.getText().getOnInput().equals( eventTrigger)
Is that what you where expecting? that's why we often use the $
prefix to differentiate fields from variables.
>
> I can't use use 'eContainer', because 'text' can also
contain
> EventTriggers in 'text.events'. These bound variables are then
> supposed to be used later within the rule, either to select other
> variables, or as part of the created element.
>
> I am going to try and remove unused bound variables, though. I
> think I will try and write a script to analyse the exported XML
> for the rules to analyse automatically (I have 264 rules written
> by hand).
>
> Thanks
> Jevon
>
> [1]: J. Wright and J. Dietrich, "Non-Montonic Model Completion in
> Web Application Engineering," in Proceedings of the 21st
> Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC 2010)
> <http://aswec2010.massey.ac.nz/>;, Auckland, New Zealand, 2010.
> http://openiaml.org/#completion
>
> 2010/7/16 Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org
> <mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org>>
>
> detail : DetailWire ( (from == source&& to == target) || (from ==
target&& to == source) )
> The above is turned effectively into an MVEL statement, you might get better
performance with a ConditionalElement 'or' as lont as the
> two are mutually exclusive:
>
> ( DetailWire (from == source, to == target ) or
> DetailWire (from == target, to == source) )
>
> I saw you did this:
> not ( form : InputForm ( eContainer == container, name ==iterator.name
<http://iterator.name> ) )
>
> The 'form' is not accessible outside the 'not', and that rule
does not need it.
>
> Is this not a bug. You bind "text". And then i'm not sure what
it is you are doing in the second two rules, but it looks wrong.
> text : InputTextField ( eContainer == form, eval
(functions.getAutocompleteInputName(attribute).equals(name)) )
> onInput : EventTrigger ( text.onInput == onInput
> currentInput : Property ( text.currentInput == currentInput )
>
> It doesn't look like you are updating the session with facts, i.e.
it's a stateless session. See if this helps
>
> KnowledgeBaseConfiguration kconf =
KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBaseConfiguration();
> kconf.setOption( SequentialOption.YES );
>
> KnowledgeBase kbase = KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBase( kconf );
> final StatelessKnowledgeSession ksession =
kbase.newStatelessKnowledgeSession();
> ksession.execute(....);
>
> In the execute you can provie it with a batch of commands to execute, or just
a list of objects, up to you. see stateless session for
> more details.
>
> The SequentialOption may help memory, a small mount, if you aren't doing
any working memory modifications (insert/modify/update/retract).
>
> Mark
>
>
> On 16/07/2010 04:16, Jevon Wright wrote:
>> Hi again,
>>
>> By removing all of the simple eval()s from my rules, I have
>> cut heap usage by at least an order of magnitude. However
>> this still isn't enough.
>>
>> Since I am trying to reduce the cross-product size (as in
>> SQL), I recall that most SQL implementations have a
>> "DESCRIBE SELECT" query which provides real-time information
>> about the complexity of a given SQL query - i.e. the size of
>> the tables, indexes used, and so on. Is there any such tool
>> available for Drools? Are there any tools which can provide
>> clues as to which rules are using the most memory?
>>
>> Alternatively, I am wondering what kind of benefit I could
>> expect from using materialized views to create summary
>> tables; that is, deriving and inserting additional facts.
>> This would allow Drools to rewrite queries that currently
>> use eval(), but would increase the size of working memory,
>> so would this actually save heap size?
>>
>> To what extent does Drools rewrite queries? Is there any
>> documentation describing the approaches used?
>>
>> Any other ideas on how to reduce heap memory usage? I'd
>> appreciate any ideas :)
>>
>> Thanks
>> Jevon
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Jevon Wright
>> <jevon(a)jevon.org <mailto:jevon@jevon.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Wolfgang and Mark,
>>
>> Thank you for your replies! You were correct: my eval()
>> functions
>> could generally be rewritten into Drools directly.
>>
>> I had one function "connectsDetail" that was constraining
>> unidirectional edges, and could be rewritten from:
>> detail : DetailWire ( )
>> eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail, source, target) )
>>
>> to:
>> detail : DetailWire ( from == source, to == target )
>>
>> Another function, "connects", was constraining
>> bidirectional edges,
>> and could be rewritten from:
>> sync : SyncWire( )
>> eval ( functions.connects(sync, source, target) )
>>
>> to:
>> sync : SyncWire( (from == source && to == target) ||
>> (from == target
>> && to == source) )
>>
>> Finally, the "veto" function could be rewritten from:
>> detail : DetailWire ( )
>> eval ( handler.veto(detail) )
>>
>> to:
>> detail : DetailWire ( overridden == false )
>>
>> I took each of these three changes, and evaluated them
>> separately [1].
>> I found that:
>>
>> 1. Inlining 'connectsDetail' made a huge difference -
>> 10-30% faster
>> execution and 50-60% less allocated heap.
>> 2. Inlining 'connects' made very little difference -
>> 10-30% faster
>> execution, but 0-20% more allocated heap.
>> 3. Inlining 'veto' made no difference - no significant
>> change in
>> execution speed or allocated heap.
>>
>> I think I understand why inlining 'connects' would
>> improve heap usage
>> - because the rules essentially have more conditionals?
>>
>> I also understand why 'veto' made no difference - for
>> most of my test
>> models, "overridden" was never true, so adding this
>> conditional was
>> not making the cross product set any smaller.
>>
>> Finally, I also tested simply joining all of the rules
>> together into
>> one file. This happily made no difference at all
>> (although made it
>> more difficult to edit).
>>
>> So I think I can safely conclude that eval() should be
>> used as little
>> as possible - however, this means that the final rules
>> are made more
>> complicated and less human-readable, so a DSL may be
>> best for my
>> common rule patterns in the future.
>>
>> Thanks again!
>> Jevon
>>
>> [1]:
>> http://www.jevon.org/wiki/Improving_Drools_Memory_Performance
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Wolfgang Laun
>> <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com
>> <mailto:wolfgang.laun@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > On 9 July 2010 14:14, Mark Proctor
>> <mproctor(a)codehaus.org <mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org>>
>> wrote:
>> >> You have many objects there that are not constrained;
>> >
>> > I have an inkling that the functions.*() are hiding
>> just these contraints,
>> > It's certainly the wrong way, starting with oodles of
>> node pairs, just to
>> > pick out connected ones by fishing for the connecting
>> edge. And this
>> > is worsened by trying to find two such pairs which
>> meet at some
>> > DomainSource
>> >
>> > Guesswork, hopefully educated ;-)
>> >
>> > -W
>> >
>> >
>> >> if there are
>> >> multiple versions of those objects you are going to
>> get massive amounts
>> >> of cross products. Think in terms of SQL, each
>> pattern you add is like
>> >> an SQL join.
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>> >> On 09/07/2010 09:20, Jevon Wright wrote:
>> >>> Hi everyone,
>> >>>
>> >>> I am working on what appears to be a fairly complex
>> rule base based on
>> >>> EMF. The rules aren't operating over a huge number
>> of facts (less than
>> >>> 10,000 EObjects) and there aren't too many rules
>> (less than 300), but
>> >>> I am having a problem with running out of Java heap
>> space (set at ~400
>> >>> MB).
>> >>>
>> >>> Through investigation, I came to the conclusion that
>> this is due to
>> >>> the design of the rules, rather than the number of
>> facts. The engine
>> >>> uses less memory inserting many facts that use
>> simple rules, compared
>> >>> with inserting few facts that use many rules.
>> >>>
>> >>> Can anybody suggest some tips for reducing heap
>> memory usage in
>> >>> Drools? I don't have a time constraint, only a
>> heap/memory constraint.
>> >>> A sample rule in my project looks like this:
>> >>>
>> >>> rule "Create QueryParameter for target
container
>> of DetailWire"
>> >>> when
>> >>> container : Frame( )
>> >>> schema : DomainSchema ( )
>> >>> domainSource : DomainSource ( )
>> >>> instance : DomainIterator( )
>> >>> selectEdge : SelectEdge ( eval (
>> >>> functions.connectsSelect(selectEdge, instance,
>> domainSource )) )
>> >>> schemaEdge : SchemaEdge ( eval (
>> >>> functions.connectsSchema(schemaEdge, domainSource,
>> schema )) )
>> >>> source : VisibleThing ( eContainer == container
)
>> >>> target : Frame ( )
>> >>> instanceSet : SetWire (
>> eval(functions.connectsSet(instanceSet,
>> >>> instance, source )) )
>> >>> detail : DetailWire ( )
>> >>> eval ( functions.connectsDetail(detail,
>> source, target ))
>> >>> pk : DomainAttribute ( eContainer == schema,
>> primaryKey == true )
>> >>> not ( queryPk : QueryParameter ( eContainer
>> == target, name == pk.name <http://pk.name> ) )
>> >>> eval ( handler.veto( detail ))
>> >>>
>> >>> then
>> >>> QueryParameter qp =
>> handler.generatedQueryParameter(detail, target);
>> >>> handler.setName(qp, pk.getName());
>> >>> queue.add(qp, drools); // wraps insert(...)
>> >>>
>> >>> end
>> >>>
>> >>> I try to order the select statements in an order
>> that will reduce the
>> >>> size of the cross-product (in theory), but I also
>> try and keep the
>> >>> rules fairly human readable. I try to avoid
>> comparison operators like
>> >>> < and>. Analysing a heap dump shows that most of
>> the memory is being
>> >>> used in StatefulSession.nodeMemories>
PrimitiveLongMap.
>> >>>
>> >>> I am using a StatefulSession; if I understand
>> correctly, I can't use a
>> >>> StatelessSession with sequential mode since I am
>> inserting facts as
>> >>> part of the rules. If I also understand correctly,
>> I'd like the Rete
>> >>> graph to be tall, rather than wide.
>> >>>
>> >>> Some ideas I have thought of include the following:
>> >>> 1. Creating a separate intermediary meta-model to
>> split up the sizes
>> >>> of the rules. e.g. instead of (if A and B and C then
>> insert D), using
>> >>> (if A and B then insert E; if E and C then insert D).
>> >>> 2. Moving eval() statements directly into the
>> Type(...) selectors.
>> >>> 3. Removing eval() statements. Would this allow for
>> better indexing by
>> >>> the Rete algorithm?
>> >>> 4. Reducing the height, or the width, of the class
>> hierarchy of the
>> >>> facts. e.g. Removing interfaces or abstract classes
>> to reduce the
>> >>> possible matches. Would this make a difference?
>> >>> 5. Conversely, increasing the height, or the width,
>> of the class
>> >>> hierarchy. e.g. Adding interfaces or abstract
>> classes to reduce field
>> >>> accessors.
>> >>> 6. Instead of using EObject.eContainer, creating an
>> explicit
>> >>> containment property in all of my EObjects.
>> >>> 7. Creating a DSL that is human-readable, but allows
>> for the
>> >>> automation of some of these approaches.
>> >>> 8. Moving all rules into one rule file, or splitting
>> up rules into
>> >>> smaller files.
>> >>>
>> >>> Is there kind of profiler for Drools that will let
>> me see the size (or
>> >>> the memory usage) of particular rules, or of the
>> memory used after
>> >>> inference? Ideally I'd use this to profile any
changes.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for any thoughts or tips! :-)
>> >>>
>> >>> Jevon
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> rules-users mailing list
>> >>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
>> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> rules-users mailing list
>> >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
>> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rules-users mailing list
>> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
5065
days inactive
5078
days old
12 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Jevon Wright -
Mark Proctor -
Wolfgang Laun