[rules-users] Few rules, many facts

[Edson Tirelli]

    Yuri,

    Not is a simple and cheap CE to use. In a simple analysis, the cost of
NOT CE is even lower than a JOIN, since it will try joins, but will
propagate a single tuple. So, go ahead, your second approach is the best way
to go.

    []s
    Edson


2007/7/23, Yuri de Wit <ydewit at gmail.com>:
>
> I am working on a drools application with few rules and large number
> of facts. In my first design I tried to avoid excessive joins thinking
> I was helping improve performance but didnt realized that I was
> actually shooting myself in the foot. I was basically creating a
> single facade-fact that would contain two or three diff concerns
> joined under the same interface. The problem I am seeing is that for
> simple things like changing the status of one of many facts would
> cause that fact to be reevaluated against all the other facts.
>
> I then realized that thinking relationally about the problem would not
> only simplify my solution but also probably make a lot faster.
> However, in this new and relational solution I will need to make use
> of many "not" CE.
>
> My question is: is there any cost in using "not"s that I should be
> awae of? Any other words of wisdom re: improving the performance in
> small rules x many facts?
>
> thanks,
> -- yuri
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>



-- 
  Edson Tirelli
  Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
  Office: +55 11 3529-6000
  Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
  JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070725/04edbfc0/attachment.html