[rules-users] Pattern aggregation

[Wolfgang Laun]

You aren't using the conditions "within one hour" here, but other than this,
it should work well, even with the customer identity included.
-W

2010/10/19 Tim 4076 <tm4076 at gmail.com>:
> What do you guys think of this: my facts are all the same type, so I didn't
> have anything like a consumer object to break things down with. But what I
> did was:
>
> rule "group 1"
> when
>   $a : Trans( $groupValue : prodCat, $date : date )
>   not Trans( this != $a, prodCat == $groupValue, date < $date )
>   $b : LinkedList( size >= 1 ) from collect ( Trans( this != $a, prodCat ==
> $groupValue, date > $date ) )
> then
>   //do something
> end
>
> This is quite quick. The rule grabs all the Trans objects that have the same
> prodCat, in a single firing, without the need to iteractively retract things
> or fire multiple times for the same group value. As the first condition only
> matches a single fact (the one with the oldest date), there is only ever a
> single permutation that can fulfill the conditions.
>
> This is only aggregating on a single attribute, but the principal should
> work with more.
>
>
> On 18 October 2010 16:12, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Doing s.th. like
>>   $t1 : Trans( $id : id, $pc : pc, $tt : tt )
>>   $t2 : Trans( this != $t1, id == $id, pc == $pc, tt < ($tt + 3600) )
>> is bound to produce poor performanc.
>>
>> Divide and conquer!
>>
>> You might start with a Consumer record
>>   Consumer( $id : id )
>>   $t1 : Trans( id == $id: , $pc : pc, $tt : tt )
>>   $t2 : Trans( this != $t1, id == $id, pc == $pc, tt < ($tt + 3600) )
>>
>> You might run an (external) sort on the Transaction records and
>> process it in batches of identical id+pc.
>>
>> If transaction times don't go around the clock, you might sort by
>> date, and process day by day.
>>
>> You may have to create a Domain Specific Language for the
>> non-programmers, putting a firm rein on how they combine the basic
>> facts. Processing large batches is bound to require skills they just
>> dont have.
>>
>> -W
>>
>>
>> On 18 October 2010 16:14, Greg Barton <greg_barton at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > It would be nice if we had an example of some rules.  That way we can
>> > rule out obvious performance killers like cartesian products and multiple
>> > "from" clauses in one rule.
>> >
>> > GreG
>> >
>> > On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:19, Tim 4076 <tm4076 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> > I'm trying to use drools to do grouping of data according to patterns
>> > defined in my rules, but I'm having issues creating something that works in
>> > a reasonable amount of time (seconds). I've tried all sorts of permutations
>> > without much luck and would like to hear how others would do the same thing.
>> >
>> > To give an example: I've got a big batch of transaction records and I
>> > want to aggregate all the records where the consumer id and product category
>> > are the same and the purchases were made within an hour of each other.
>> >
>> > The fact that its matching the same values between facts, rather than
>> > against constants seems to scupper it somewhat.
>> >
>> > I would go down the ETL route, but the idea is for non-techies to define
>> > their own aggregations using rules.
>> >
>> > -Cheers. Tim
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rules-users mailing list
>> > rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rules-users mailing list
>> > rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>