12:50 p.m.
I think this question was asked recently but I cant seem to find it.
Using 4.0.7
I have a large number of facts I need to retract from working memory after
all rules have been processed (transaction is completed) so I can insert new
facts for the next transaction. Milliseconds count.
I know that drools recalc's which rules are eligible to be run after each
retraction. Since all facts are being removed its unneeded processing and
time that could be saved.
How can I tell drools that until I tell it otherwise do not re-evaluate the
rules to save time?
Scott
1:06 p.m.
Dispose of your session and create another.
--- On Wed, 9/16/09, Scott Burrows <scottjburrows(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Scott Burrows <scottjburrows(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [rules-users] How to prevent activation list creation on retracts
To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 12:50 PM
I think this question was asked recently
but I cant seem to find it.
Using 4.0.7
I have a large number of facts I need to retract from
working memory after all rules have been processed
(transaction is completed) so I can insert new facts for the
next transaction. Milliseconds count.
I know that drools recalc's which rules are eligible to
be run after each retraction. Since all facts are being
removed its unneeded processing and time that could be
saved.
How can I tell drools that until I tell it otherwise do not
re-evaluate the rules to save time?
Scott
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
2 p.m.
Thanks Greg but I have tried that, creating a newstatefulsession is slowish,
taking around 800 milliseconds to do. When milliseconds count 800 is too
long. It's faster to do the retracts, they take about 400 millis.
Someone showed a command or configuration recently that tells workingmemory
not to re-eval the rules. I'm looking for that switch or something
equivalent.
Our system is a live transaction system. The trans need to be completed and
ready for the next one in under a second.
Scott
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Dispose of your session and create another.
--- On Wed, 9/16/09, Scott Burrows <scottjburrows(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Scott Burrows <scottjburrows(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [rules-users] How to prevent activation list creation on
retracts
> To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 12:50 PM
> I think this question was asked recently
> but I cant seem to find it.
>
> Using 4.0.7
>
> I have a large number of facts I need to retract from
> working memory after all rules have been processed
> (transaction is completed) so I can insert new facts for the
> next transaction. Milliseconds count.
>
>
> I know that drools recalc's which rules are eligible to
> be run after each retraction. Since all facts are being
> removed its unneeded processing and time that could be
> saved.
>
> How can I tell drools that until I tell it otherwise do not
> re-evaluate the rules to save time?
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
3:27 p.m.
You can't have concurrent threads, each with a session?
Or do you need all transactions processed serially? Also, can you process simultaneous
transactions in the same working memory without retracting objects from the previous one?
Objects from previous transactions could then be cleaned up by low priority rules that ran
between transactions. (Of course, there's potential memory build up problems involved
with that, but that can be mediated. A high priority rule could kick in if there are too
many completed transactions hanging around.)
You could call halt() then clearAgenda() on the session when you're done with a
transaction, then retract all objects. Maybe that will be faster. Having the agenda
clear might make it faster because there would be no activations to check against the
retracted objects. (Though it would still have to remove them from the rete node
memories.) That's just a guess, though.
--- On Wed, 9/16/09, Scott Burrows <scottjburrows(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Scott Burrows <scottjburrows(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rules-users] How to prevent activation list creation on retracts
To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 2:00 PM
Thanks Greg but I have tried that, creating
a newstatefulsession is slowish, taking around 800
milliseconds to do. When milliseconds count 800 is too
long. It's faster to do the retracts, they take about
400 millis.
Someone showed a command or configuration recently that
tells workingmemory not to re-eval the rules. I'm
looking for that switch or something equivalent.
Our system is a live transaction system. The trans need
to be completed and ready for the next one in under a
second.
Scott
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:06 PM,
Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
Dispose of your session and create another.
--- On Wed, 9/16/09, Scott Burrows <scottjburrows(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> From: Scott Burrows <scottjburrows(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [rules-users] How to prevent activation list
creation on retracts
> To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 12:50 PM
> I think this question
was asked recently
> but I cant seem to find it.
>
> Using 4.0.7
>
> I have a large number of facts I need to retract from
> working memory after all rules have been processed
> (transaction is completed) so I can insert new facts
for the
> next transaction. Milliseconds count.
>
>
> I know that drools recalc's which rules are
eligible to
> be run after each retraction. Since all facts are
being
> removed its unneeded processing and time that could
be
> saved.
>
> How can I tell drools that until I tell it otherwise
do not
> re-evaluate the rules to save time?
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
3 a.m.
New subject: How to prevent activation list creation onretracts
Can I just clarify that you *need* truth maintenance on the inserts but not on the
retractions?
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of Greg Barton
Sent: 16 September 2009 21:28
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] How to prevent activation list creation onretracts
You can't have concurrent threads, each with a session?
Or do you need all transactions processed serially? Also, can you process simultaneous
transactions in the same working memory without retracting objects from the previous one?
Objects from previous transactions could then be cleaned up by low priority rules that ran
between transactions. (Of course, there's potential memory build up problems involved
with that, but that can be mediated. A high priority rule could kick in if there are too
many completed transactions hanging around.)
You could call halt() then clearAgenda() on the session when you're done with a
transaction, then retract all objects. Maybe that will be faster. Having the agenda
clear might make it faster because there would be no activations to check against the
retracted objects. (Though it would still have to remove them from the rete node
memories.) That's just a guess, though.
--- On Wed, 9/16/09, Scott Burrows <scottjburrows(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Scott Burrows <scottjburrows(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rules-users] How to prevent activation list creation on retracts
To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 2:00 PM
Thanks Greg but I have tried that, creating
a newstatefulsession is slowish, taking around 800
milliseconds to do. When milliseconds count 800 is too
long. It's faster to do the retracts, they take about
400 millis.
Someone showed a command or configuration recently that
tells workingmemory not to re-eval the rules. I'm
looking for that switch or something equivalent.
Our system is a live transaction system. The trans need
to be completed and ready for the next one in under a
second.
Scott
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:06 PM,
Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
Dispose of your session and create another.
--- On Wed, 9/16/09, Scott Burrows <scottjburrows(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> From: Scott Burrows <scottjburrows(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [rules-users] How to prevent activation list
creation on retracts
> To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 12:50 PM
> I think this question
was asked recently
> but I cant seem to find it.
>
> Using 4.0.7
>
> I have a large number of facts I need to retract from
> working memory after all rules have been processed
> (transaction is completed) so I can insert new facts
for the
> next transaction. Milliseconds count.
>
>
> I know that drools recalc's which rules are
eligible to
> be run after each retraction. Since all facts are
being
> removed its unneeded processing and time that could
be
> saved.
>
> How can I tell drools that until I tell it otherwise
do not
> re-evaluate the rules to save time?
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
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
5597
days inactive
5598
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Anstis, Michael (M.) -
Greg Barton -
Scott Burrows