[rules-users] Independent rule evaluations

techy techluver007 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 6 15:48:50 EST 2008 

Kris,
Please clarify me.

If anyone else has implemented db driven ruleflow, Please share your ideas.

Thanks
Kamesh



Edson Tirelli-3 wrote:
> 
>    I guess you need to talk to Kris, the ruleflow master. :)
> 
> 2008/11/6 techy <techluver007 at gmail.com>
> 
>>
>> Thanks Edson for the clarification.
>> 1. actually I want to manage rule flow from the database.
>> Do I have to store whole rfm file content in the database as text column?
>> If so, I was looking at the sample rfm file and its content does not look
>> simpler. If I want to edit to rfm file in the database(add/remove nodes
>> or
>> rule group etc),it seems too much complicated or very error prone.Editing
>> of
>> rfm does not look feasible without using eclipse graphical editor. If
>> that's
>> the case, How can I have rule flow as database driven? Or may be whenever
>> I
>> want to edit rule flow, then I can do it in the eclipse GUI and update
>> the
>> content in the databse. then I wont call this as database driven. Please
>> clarify.
>>
>>
>> Edson Tirelli-3 wrote:
>> >
>> >    Trying to answer:
>> >
>> > 1. not sure what you mean. You design a rule flow as a sequence of
>> steps
>> > (groups) in the same way you would do when designing a workflow. When
>> you
>> > write your rules, you associate those rules to groups in that flow. The
>> > ruleflow design itself is an XML file. So, the general answer is: you
>> can
>> > store a ruleflow in a database. Rebuilding the rulebase is fine, and
>> > AFAIK,
>> > ruleflows are dynamic, so you can add them to existing rulebases. Kris
>> can
>> > confirm this to you.
>> >
>> > 2. yes, there are several optimizations you can do to the engine and to
>> > your
>> > rules, in a similar way you would do for a database. Which
>> optimizations
>> > and
>> > how to do it can only be answered by seeing your use case, and fine
>> > tunning
>> > it. Regarding volumes, we have users using thousands of rules and
>> millions
>> > of facts without problems, but as you know, the bigger the size, more
>> > careful you need to be on the engine configuration and the quality of
>> your
>> > rules.
>> > I'm trying to get a user to write a blog on the sizing of the
>> application
>> > they have right now. I don't want to disclose the information before
>> they
>> > allow me to do it, but their specific solution does not have as many
>> rules
>> > as yours, but process a similar volume of facts as yours in 2-hours
>> > windows.
>> > They run in a server with just a few cores, but use a considerable
>> amount
>> > of
>> > memory.
>> >
>> >    Regarding your question about if a production rules engine fits your
>> > use
>> > case, Rete algorithm as a general rule, will provide increasing
>> benefits
>> > as
>> > the rule base grows, because more rules you have, more you will benefit
>> of
>> > optimizations like node sharing and other techniques.
>> >
>> >    If you go ahead, I suggest you contact Red Hat. They can help with
>> your
>> > solution design, training (if necessary) as well as provide support for
>> > development and production.
>> >
>> >    []s
>> >    Edson
>> >
>> > 2008/11/4 techy <techluver007 at gmail.com>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Edson.
>> >> Few more questions based on my requirements.
>> >>
>> >> I want to load all rules from the database once for everyday(during
>> daily
>> >> job startup) and apply them against huge amount of data.here rules are
>> >> once
>> >> loaded, no further need for dynamic addition/removal during that
>> >> execution.
>> >> But If I add any new rules to the database, rule engine should be able
>> to
>> >> pick those during next execution(Intention here is to provide a custom
>> >> editor later on for the user to manage the rules.since droosl's BRMS
>> does
>> >> not seem handle all of our use case conditions, I've concluded to have
>> >> custom BRMS).
>> >>
>> >> 1.Can I have rule flow as database driven?
>> >> i.e Can I store rule flow content for each rule as text column in the
>> >> database and create rule flow file during the execution of each  day?
>> >>
>> >> 2. my requirement is to run 1200 use cases(rules) against 40- 50
>> million
>> >> records each day, I'm really concerned about execution time also. Can
>> I
>> >> do
>> >> any optimization in the rule engine for faster execution?
>> >> Is rule engine still a good option in this case?
>> >>
>> >> appreciate your help.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Edson Tirelli-3 wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >     Yuri,
>> >> >
>> >> >     Right now, the only way is to work with different rule bases and
>> >> > working
>> >> > memories. Even using agenda-groups or rule-flow, rules are still
>> being
>> >> > eagerly evaluated, as this is how standard Rete works.
>> >> >     The problem of creating and canceling too many activations is a
>> >> known
>> >> > problem and the only way around it right now is sequential mode, but
>> >> > sequential mode has some restrictions on what you can do. For
>> instance,
>> >> > you
>> >> > must work with a stateless working memory and can not modify/retract
>> >> facts
>> >> > in your rules to work with sequential mode, but it will give you big
>> >> > performance boosts.
>> >> >
>> >> >     We are evaluating the possibility of creating physical network
>> >> > partitions for next version, but that will require some R&D yet.
>> >> >
>> >> >     []s
>> >> >     Edson
>> >> >
>> >> > 2007/8/14, Yuri <ydewit at gmail.com>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dr. Gernot Starke <gs <at> gernotstarke.de> writes:
>> >> >> > can you detail your problem a little?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I basically need to find perfect matches between two different sets
>> of
>> >> >> objects.
>> >> >> If perfect matches are not found, I then create bulks of objects
>> that
>> >> are
>> >> >> then
>> >> >> used in combination with the individual ones to find bulk matches.
>> If
>> >> no
>> >> >> matches
>> >> >> are found I need then to categorize the breaks (around 10 different
>> >> >> categorizations) and report them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The matching criteria between two object is specific enough to be
>> >> fast.
>> >> >> Once I
>> >> >> get into break, which basically is removing some criteria
>> components,
>> >> the
>> >> >> possible combinations increase exponentially. Bulking just
>> compounds
>> >> the
>> >> >> problem
>> >> >> by adding more matchable/breakable facts into memory.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> My bulking logic (I didnt have collect when I started with 3.0)
>> starts
>> >> a
>> >> >> bulk
>> >> >> looking for two diff objects with the same bulkling criteria (this
>> is
>> >> my
>> >> >> first
>> >> >> potential cross product since drools would produce C!/N!(C-N)!
>> >> >> combinations).
>> >> >> Then once the bulk for a given criteria is create I have a second
>> rule
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> expands or contracts the bulks as new facts are asserted causing
>> many
>> >> >> different
>> >> >> side effects.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What I am basically seeing is that asserting a fact that would for
>> >> >> instance be a
>> >> >> perfect match, causes many of the bulking and breaking rule
>> >> activations
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> created and then cancelled. Considering that I am talking about
>> tens
>> >> or
>> >> >> hundreds
>> >> >> of thousands of facts I thought that if I could stage the
>> activation
>> >> >> creations I
>> >> >> would increase processing speed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> With 15K objects on each side I have been seeing something like 1
>> >> >> assertion per
>> >> >> second.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am aware that this could be cross product somewhere but I have
>> >> already
>> >> >> revised
>> >> >> the rules many many times so now I am looking for other
>> alternatives.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am now trying to understand looking I basically need to find
>> perfect
>> >> >> matches
>> >> >> between two different sets of objects. If perfect matches are not
>> >> found,
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> then
>> >> >> create bulks of objects that are then used in combination with the
>> >> >> individual
>> >> >> one to find bulk matches. If no matches are found I need then to
>> >> >> categorize the
>> >> >> breaks (around 10 different categorizations) and report them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> 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
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > rules-users mailing list
>> >> > rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> View this message in context:
>> >>
>> http://www.nabble.com/Independent-rule-evaluations-tp12129972p20335308.html
>> >> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> rules-users mailing list
>> >> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >  Edson Tirelli
>> >  JBoss Drools Core Development
>> >  JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rules-users mailing list
>> > rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Independent-rule-evaluations-tp12129972p20364536.html
>> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>  Edson Tirelli
>  JBoss Drools Core Development
>  JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Independent-rule-evaluations-tp12129972p20369356.html
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the rules-users mailing list