Dear Community, Drools is pretty fast regarding all my use cases. However, today I have found a problem where I cannot find any solution. Hopefully someone of you can help. 1. I have a rule with a @timer(10s) attribute (should be 24h later on but doesn't matter). This rule is activated when a "create" event occurs and invalidated once a "delete" event occurs within the timeframe of @timer. 2. I have approx. 9000 "create" events which are bulk loaded into the working memory and creating activations for the rule above. 3. I have approx. 2000 "delete" events which are bulk loaded into my entry-point cancelling the respective activations from step (2) 4. After the timer expired, the first activation is fired correctly. However, all other activations are fired with some noticeable delay (actually it needs 20-30minutes until all activations are fired). Do you have an idea what the problem with the timer might be? Unfortunately, I have neither an idea how the scheduler in the background works nor which class I should start looking at. BTW: For testing purpose I switched step (2) & (3), that is, "delete" events are inserted before the "create" events and removed the timer attribute which is obviously the same logic. It performs lightning fast in this case... (all remaining activations are fired within 5 seconds). However, insertinging my "delete" events before the "create" events is ok for testing but not feasible in practice. It would be great if some of you has an idea or point to start within the code. Thanks in advance, Philipp _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

Sure, here it is. Sorry for any inconvienience! rule "new_intent" timer (20s) when $evt : EventObject(data['type']=='create') from entry-point eventstream not ( EventObject(data['type']=='delete', data['mrid']==$evt.data['mrid'], data['userid']==$evt.data['userid']) from entry-point eventstream) then SomeAPI.getInstance().doSomething(); end Thank you, Philipp 2012/1/30 Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; > > It's going to help (probably) if you include the definition of your rule (or rules). > > 2012/1/30 Philipp Herzig <pherzig(a)googlemail.com&gt; >> >> Dear Community, >> >> Drools is pretty fast regarding all my use cases. However, today I have found a problem where I cannot find any solution. Hopefully someone of you can help. >> >> 1. I have a rule with a @timer(10s) attribute (should be 24h later on but doesn't matter). This rule is activated when a "create" event occurs and invalidated once a "delete" event occurs within the timeframe of @timer. >> >> 2. I have approx. 9000 "create" events which are bulk loaded into the working memory and creating activations for the rule above. >> >> 3. I have approx. 2000 "delete" events which are bulk loaded into my entry-point cancelling the respective activations from step (2) >> >> 4. After the timer expired, the first activation is fired correctly. However, all other activations are fired with some noticeable delay (actually it needs 20-30minutes until all activations are fired). >> >> >> Do you have an idea what the problem with the timer might be? Unfortunately, I have neither an idea how the scheduler in the background works nor which class I should start looking at. >> >> BTW: For testing purpose I switched step (2) & (3), that is, "delete" events are inserted before the "create" events and removed the timer attribute which is obviously the same logic. It performs lightning fast in this case... (all remaining activations are fired within 5 seconds). However, insertinging my "delete" events before the "create" events is ok for testing but not feasible in practice. >> >> It would be great if some of you has an idea or point to start within the code. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Philipp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- -------------------------------------------- Philipp Herzig, M.Sc. Mail: pherzig(a)googlemail.com Cell: 0178 - 6156244 _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

Thanks Wolfgang for your reply. doSomething simply persists something with JPA, no events are retracted or updated. The behavior does also not change when there is a simple println in the then clause. OK.

I thought events are automatically retracted once no rule applied anymore. The EventObject class with the map is used only for abstraction within the architecture (actually a property pattern). No intention to speed up something.

and, of course, deletes are already inserted before the creates, otherwise the rule won't fire.

Do you know how the Scheduler works? According to the observed behavior I would guess that there is a background job invoked every 100ms checking if there are timer delayed activations which has to be fired. If this is the case, I wonder why only some activations are fired and not all. Due to the upper time bound? Thanks again, Philipp 2012/1/30 Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt;: > Does the doSomething() update or retract any EventObject facts and notify > the Drools engine accordingly? > > (So far: Neither using the same class for the "create" and the "delete" > events nor > using a map (i.e., "data") for all properties is helping w.r.t. speed.) > > -W > > > On 30 January 2012 15:07, Philipp Herzig <pherzig(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> Sure, here it is. Sorry for any inconvienience! >> >> rule "new_intent" >> timer (20s) >> when >> $evt : EventObject(data['type']=='create') from entry-point >> eventstream >> not ( EventObject(data['type']=='delete', >> data['mrid']==$evt.data['mrid'], data['userid']==$evt.data['userid']) >> from entry-point eventstream) >> then >> SomeAPI.getInstance().doSomething(); >> end >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> Philipp >> >> >> >> >> 2012/1/30 Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; >> > >> > It's going to help (probably) if you include the definition of your rule >> > (or rules). >> > >> > 2012/1/30 Philipp Herzig <pherzig(a)googlemail.com&gt; >> >> >> >> Dear Community, >> >> >> >> Drools is pretty fast regarding all my use cases. However, today I have >> >> found a problem where I cannot find any solution. Hopefully someone of you >> >> can help. >> >> >> >> 1. I have a rule with a @timer(10s) attribute (should be 24h later on >> >> but doesn't matter). This rule is activated when a "create" event occurs and >> >> invalidated once a "delete" event occurs within the timeframe of @timer. >> >> >> >> 2. I have approx. 9000 "create" events which are bulk loaded into the >> >> working memory and creating activations for the rule above. >> >> >> >> 3. I have approx. 2000 "delete" events which are bulk loaded into my >> >> entry-point cancelling the respective activations from step (2) >> >> >> >> 4. After the timer expired, the first activation is fired correctly. >> >> However, all other activations are fired with some noticeable delay >> >> (actually it needs 20-30minutes until all activations are fired). >> >> >> >> >> >> Do you have an idea what the problem with the timer might be? >> >> Unfortunately, I have neither an idea how the scheduler in the background >> >> works nor which class I should start looking at. >> >> >> >> BTW: For testing purpose I switched step (2) & (3), that is, "delete" >> >> events are inserted before the "create" events and removed the timer >> >> attribute which is obviously the same logic. It performs lightning fast in >> >> this case... (all remaining activations are fired within 5 >> >> seconds). However, insertinging my "delete" events before the "create" >> >> events is ok for testing but not feasible in practice. >> >> >> >> It would be great if some of you has an idea or point to start within >> >> the code. >> >> >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> >> >> Philipp >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> -------------------------------------------- >> Philipp Herzig, M.Sc. >> >> Mail: pherzig(a)googlemail.com >> Cell: 0178 - 6156244 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- -------------------------------------------- Philipp Herzig, M.Sc. Mail: pherzig(a)googlemail.com Cell: 0178 - 6156244 _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

Thanks again, yes I call fireAllRules() after insertion. My understanding is that the join on mrid reduces the search space (actually 2000) (actually canceled du to not) and the remainder can be processed as leftover from the outer join. Anyhow, when I remove the "not join" clause the behavior is exactly the same. (1) 8000 create events are inserted and objects are asserted and activations created! (2) after 20s the activations are actually fired, but with a noticeable delay (30min) Now, when I simply remove the timer, all 8000 activations are fired super fast (5s !!!) Or am I overlooking sth? Thanks for your patience, Philipp 2012/1/30 Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt;: > > > On 30 January 2012 17:18, Philipp Herzig <pherzig(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> Thanks Wolfgang for your reply. >> >> doSomething simply persists something with JPA, no events are >> retracted or updated. The behavior does also not change when there is >> a simple println in the then clause. >> > OK. > > >> >> I thought events are automatically retracted once no rule applied >> anymore. The EventObject class with the map is used only for >> abstraction within the architecture (actually a property pattern). No >> intention to speed up something. > > > There's no information in the (only) rule that would permit an automatic > retraction. > Mostly this is possible when temporal operators are used. > > Searching for EventObject/create without matching EventObject/delete is > causing a lot of work, since each insertion requires an exhaustive linear > search for the absence of a delete or the presence of a create. > > What do you call after the bunch insert? fireAllRules() ? > > -W > > >> As I said, the activation firing works fine when no timer is present >> and, of course, deletes are already inserted before the creates, >> otherwise the rule won't fire. >> >> >> Do you know how the Scheduler works? According to the observed >> behavior I would guess that there is a background job invoked every >> 100ms checking if there are timer delayed activations which has to be >> fired. >> If this is the case, I wonder why only some activations are fired and >> not all. Due to the upper time bound? >> >> Thanks again, >> >> Philipp >> >> >> 2012/1/30 Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt;: >> > Does the doSomething() update or retract any EventObject facts and >> > notify >> > the Drools engine accordingly? >> > >> > (So far: Neither using the same class for the "create" and the "delete" >> > events nor >> > using a map (i.e., "data") for all properties is helping w.r.t. speed.) >> > >> > -W >> > >> > >> > On 30 January 2012 15:07, Philipp Herzig <pherzig(a)googlemail.com&gt; >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Sure, here it is. Sorry for any inconvienience! >> >> >> >> rule "new_intent" >> >> timer (20s) >> >> when >> >> $evt : EventObject(data['type']=='create') from entry-point >> >> eventstream >> >> not ( EventObject(data['type']=='delete', >> >> data['mrid']==$evt.data['mrid'], data['userid']==$evt.data['userid']) >> >> from entry-point eventstream) >> >> then >> >> SomeAPI.getInstance().doSomething(); >> >> end >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> >> >> Philipp >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2012/1/30 Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; >> >> > >> >> > It's going to help (probably) if you include the definition of your >> >> > rule >> >> > (or rules). >> >> > >> >> > 2012/1/30 Philipp Herzig <pherzig(a)googlemail.com&gt; >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Community, >> >> >> >> >> >> Drools is pretty fast regarding all my use cases. However, today I >> >> >> have >> >> >> found a problem where I cannot find any solution. Hopefully someone >> >> >> of you >> >> >> can help. >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. I have a rule with a @timer(10s) attribute (should be 24h later >> >> >> on >> >> >> but doesn't matter). This rule is activated when a "create" event >> >> >> occurs and >> >> >> invalidated once a "delete" event occurs within the timeframe of >> >> >> @timer. >> >> >> >> >> >> 2. I have approx. 9000 "create" events which are bulk loaded into >> >> >> the >> >> >> working memory and creating activations for the rule above. >> >> >> >> >> >> 3. I have approx. 2000 "delete" events which are bulk loaded into >> >> >> my >> >> >> entry-point cancelling the respective activations from step (2) >> >> >> >> >> >> 4. After the timer expired, the first activation is fired >> >> >> correctly. >> >> >> However, all other activations are fired with some noticeable delay >> >> >> (actually it needs 20-30minutes until all activations are fired). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Do you have an idea what the problem with the timer might be? >> >> >> Unfortunately, I have neither an idea how the scheduler in the >> >> >> background >> >> >> works nor which class I should start looking at. >> >> >> >> >> >> BTW: For testing purpose I switched step (2) & (3), that is, >> >> >> "delete" >> >> >> events are inserted before the "create" events and removed the >> >> >> timer >> >> >> attribute which is obviously the same logic. It performs lightning >> >> >> fast in >> >> >> this case... (all remaining activations are fired within 5 >> >> >> seconds). However, insertinging my "delete" events before the >> >> >> "create" >> >> >> events is ok for testing but not feasible in practice. >> >> >> >> >> >> It would be great if some of you has an idea or point to start >> >> >> within >> >> >> the code. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> >> >> >> >> Philipp >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> 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 >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> >> Philipp Herzig, M.Sc. >> >> >> >> Mail: pherzig(a)googlemail.com >> >> Cell: 0178 - 6156244 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> -------------------------------------------- >> Philipp Herzig, M.Sc. >> >> Mail: pherzig(a)googlemail.com >> Cell: 0178 - 6156244 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- -------------------------------------------- Philipp Herzig, M.Sc. Mail: pherzig(a)googlemail.com Cell: 0178 - 6156244 _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

Thanks Wolfgang for testing. Well I found something. I am using the JPAKnowledgeService and when inserting the bunch of events within a JTA (with BTM) the discussed behavior occurs. If I am removing the JPA stuff it performs as expected. Well, of course, now my question is, how are the events are persisted when is timer is present and fetched (lazy, eager?) once the timer expires? Unfortunately, I would need session persistence because the timers can be long and need to be recreated after an outage. Thanks again for your time :) Philipp 2012/1/30 Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt;: > Hmm, I'm using 5.3.0 and I can't confirm your "slow" results. > > -W > > > On 30/01/2012, Philipp Herzig <pherzig(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: >> Thanks again, >> >> yes I call fireAllRules() after insertion. >> >> My understanding is that the join on mrid reduces the search space >> (actually 2000) (actually canceled du to not) and the remainder can be >> processed as leftover from the outer join. >> >> Anyhow, when I remove the "not join" clause the behavior is exactly the >> same. >> >> (1) 8000 create events are inserted and objects are asserted and >> activations created! >> (2) after 20s the activations are actually fired, but with a >> noticeable delay (30min) >> >> Now, when I simply remove the timer, all 8000 activations are fired >> super fast (5s !!!) >> >> Or am I overlooking sth? >> >> Thanks for your patience, >> >> Philipp >> >> >> 2012/1/30 Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt;: >>> >>> >>> On 30 January 2012 17:18, Philipp Herzig <pherzig(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks Wolfgang for your reply. >>>> >>>> doSomething simply persists something with JPA, no events are >>>> retracted or updated. The behavior does also not change when there is >>>> a simple println in the then clause. >>>> >>> OK. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I thought events are automatically retracted once no rule applied >>>> anymore. The EventObject class with the map is used only for >>>> abstraction within the architecture (actually a property pattern). No >>>> intention to speed up something. >>> >>> >>> There's no information in the (only) rule that would permit an automatic >>> retraction. >>> Mostly this is possible when temporal operators are used. >>> >>> Searching for EventObject/create without matching EventObject/delete is >>> causing a lot of work, since each insertion requires an exhaustive >>> linear >>> search for the absence of a delete or the presence of a create. >>> >>> What do you call after the bunch insert? fireAllRules() ? >>> >>> -W >>> >>> >>>> As I said, the activation firing works fine when no timer is present >>>> and, of course, deletes are already inserted before the creates, >>>> otherwise the rule won't fire. >>>> >>>> >>>> Do you know how the Scheduler works? According to the observed >>>> behavior I would guess that there is a background job invoked every >>>> 100ms checking if there are timer delayed activations which has to be >>>> fired. >>>> If this is the case, I wonder why only some activations are fired and >>>> not all. Due to the upper time bound? >>>> >>>> Thanks again, >>>> >>>> Philipp >>>> >>>> >>>> 2012/1/30 Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt;: >>>> > Does the doSomething() update or retract any EventObject facts and >>>> > notify >>>> > the Drools engine accordingly? >>>> > >>>> > (So far: Neither using the same class for the "create" and the >>>> > "delete" >>>> > events nor >>>> > using a map (i.e., "data") for all properties is helping w.r.t. >>>> > speed.) >>>> > >>>> > -W >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On 30 January 2012 15:07, Philipp Herzig <pherzig(a)googlemail.com&gt; >>>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Sure, here it is. Sorry for any inconvienience! >>>> >> >>>> >> rule "new_intent" >>>> >> timer (20s) >>>> >> when >>>> >> $evt : EventObject(data['type']=='create') from entry-point >>>> >> eventstream >>>> >> not ( EventObject(data['type']=='delete', >>>> >> data['mrid']==$evt.data['mrid'], >>>> >> data['userid']==$evt.data['userid']) >>>> >> from entry-point eventstream) >>>> >> then >>>> >> SomeAPI.getInstance().doSomething(); >>>> >> end >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Thank you, >>>> >> >>>> >> Philipp >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> 2012/1/30 Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>> >> > >>>> >> > It's going to help (probably) if you include the definition of >>>> >> > your >>>> >> > rule >>>> >> > (or rules). >>>> >> > >>>> >> > 2012/1/30 Philipp Herzig <pherzig(a)googlemail.com&gt; >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Dear Community, >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Drools is pretty fast regarding all my use cases. However, today >>>> >> >> I >>>> >> >> have >>>> >> >> found a problem where I cannot find any solution. Hopefully >>>> >> >> someone >>>> >> >> of you >>>> >> >> can help. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> 1. I have a rule with a @timer(10s) attribute (should be 24h >>>> >> >> later >>>> >> >> on >>>> >> >> but doesn't matter). This rule is activated when a "create" event >>>> >> >> occurs and >>>> >> >> invalidated once a "delete" event occurs within the timeframe of >>>> >> >> @timer. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> 2. I have approx. 9000 "create" events which are bulk loaded into >>>> >> >> the >>>> >> >> working memory and creating activations for the rule above. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> 3. I have approx. 2000 "delete" events which are bulk loaded into >>>> >> >> my >>>> >> >> entry-point cancelling the respective activations from step (2) >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> 4. After the timer expired, the first activation is fired >>>> >> >> correctly. >>>> >> >> However, all other activations are fired with some noticeable >>>> >> >> delay >>>> >> >> (actually it needs 20-30minutes until all activations are fired). >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Do you have an idea what the problem with the timer might be? >>>> >> >> Unfortunately, I have neither an idea how the scheduler in the >>>> >> >> background >>>> >> >> works nor which class I should start looking at. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> BTW: For testing purpose I switched step (2) & (3), that is, >>>> >> >> "delete" >>>> >> >> events are inserted before the "create" events and removed the >>>> >> >> timer >>>> >> >> attribute which is obviously the same logic. It performs >>>> >> >> lightning >>>> >> >> fast in >>>> >> >> this case... (all remaining activations are fired within 5 >>>> >> >> seconds). However, insertinging my "delete" events before the >>>> >> >> "create" >>>> >> >> events is ok for testing but not feasible in practice. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> It would be great if some of you has an idea or point to start >>>> >> >> within >>>> >> >> the code. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Thanks in advance, >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Philipp >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> >> 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 >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> -------------------------------------------- >>>> >> Philipp Herzig, M.Sc. >>>> >> >>>> >> Mail: pherzig(a)googlemail.com >>>> >> Cell: 0178 - 6156244 >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> 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 >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -------------------------------------------- >>>> Philipp Herzig, M.Sc. >>>> >>>> Mail: pherzig(a)googlemail.com >>>> Cell: 0178 - 6156244 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> -------------------------------------------- >> Philipp Herzig, M.Sc. >> >> Mail: pherzig(a)googlemail.com >> Cell: 0178 - 6156244 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- -------------------------------------------- Philipp Herzig, M.Sc. Mail: pherzig(a)googlemail.com Cell: 0178 - 6156244 _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users