[rules-users] Why does Drools' RuleBase.addPackage() Behave This Way?

[Mark Proctor]

Thanks for the feedback, glad it's working out faster for you. Btw have 
you tried our sequentail mode, thats even faster, especially for large 
data sets and where as JRule's sequential/fastpath modes limit the rule 
langauge available to you, we still allow you access to the full 
language. Also notice how we don't need to pool rule contexts like 
JRules, our single rulebase can be shared amount working memory 
sessions, making the management of sessions very light weight which 
simplifies your over all infrastructure.

On the increasing times, that doesn't look good. Probably a bad loop or 
cache somewhere. Could you make a self contained project showing this 
behaviour and upload it as a jira, and we will track and hopefully move 
the bottlebeck. Hopefully JProfiler can shed some light.

Btw what do you mean by "non-optimized test rule set and data" - just 
trying to understand so I can compare apples to apples.

Mark
Jin, Ming wrote:
> I am benchmarking Drools 4.0 and received excellent results in rule 
> execution.  With our non-optimized test rule set and data, Drools out 
> performed ILOG/JRules by quite a bit.  Congratulations to Drools' team 
> for a job well done.
>  
> I encountered a strange behavior when trying to test the performance 
> of rule registration, meaning to add Package's to a new instance of 
> RuleBase.  I ran the same test 5 times in a sequence, and the RuleBase 
> instance was discarded right away.  The test ran with different 
> different number of packages, 20, 50, 100, and 200.  The results are 
> as the followings:
>  
> Added 20 packages to rulebase in 0:00:0.15
> Added 20 packages to rulebase in 0:00:0.21
> Added 20 packages to rulebase in 0:00:0.21
> Added 20 packages to rulebase in 0:00:0.301
> Added 20 packages to rulebase in 0:00:0.18
> Added 20 packages to rulebase 5 times in 0:00:1.051
>  
> Added 50 packages to rulebase in 0:00:0.17
> Added 50 packages to rulebase in 0:00:1.422
> Added 50 packages to rulebase in 0:00:1.252
> Added 50 packages to rulebase in 0:00:1.322
> Added 50 packages to rulebase in 0:00:1.331
> Added 50 packages to rulebase 5 times in 0:00:5.497
>  
> Added 100 packages to rulebase in 0:00:0.19
> Added 100 packages to rulebase in 0:00:5.278
> Added 100 packages to rulebase in 0:00:5.297
> Added 100 packages to rulebase in 0:00:5.228
> Added 100 packages to rulebase in 0:00:5.327
> Added 100 packages to rulebase 5 times in 0:00:21.32
>  
> Added 200 packages to rulebase in 0:00:0.22
> Added 200 packages to rulebase in 0:00:21.691
> Added 200 packages to rulebase in 0:00:21.481
> Added 200 packages to rulebase in 0:00:21.642
> Added 200 packages to rulebase in 0:00:21.341
> Added 200 packages to rulebase 5 times in 0:01:26.385
>  
> As you can see, the timing of creating first RuleBase instance is 
> always good, while the subsequent one's were very bad.  Is there an 
> attribute I could adjust in configuration to improve the performance 
> for this scenario?  Please advise if there is other alternatives.  I 
> would be glad to provide details if needed.
>  
> Your help is greatly appreciated!
> -Ming
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070802/2bc00f0f/attachment.html