[rules-users] Poor performance from a simple join

[Mark Proctor]

sorry I misread that, you've put the binding first, not using a nested 
accessor.

Currently you have
$call              : BINNING_INPUT()
$device_typeLookup : LU_DEVICE_TYPE( $call.device_type == device_type )

try rewriting it as:
$call              : BINNING_INPUT()
$device_typeLookup : LU_DEVICE_TYPE( device_type == $call.device_type )

I know edson was working on making such that the order no longer 
matters, I'm not sure what progress he made on that and he's away at the 
moment so can't answer. It may be that he's already done that work and 
it's correctly getting executed as an indexed constraint, or it might be 
rewritting to an eval. Hopefully edson can answer when he gets back.

Ass Mauricio suggests, maybe you can restrict the number of instances 
for BINNING_INPUT and LU_DEVICE_TYPE too.

Mark




On 19/12/2011 16:51, Mark Proctor wrote:
> Nested accessors are not currently indexed, because we cannot assure 
> their immutability:
> $call.device_type
>
> If people changed indexed nested accessors, without correctly 
> notifying the engine it would result in integrity problems.
>
> If you have a large number of these, trying flattening the model, such 
> as you would do in a database.
>
> Mark
> On 19/12/2011 16:23, David Martin wrote:
>> Folks:
>>
>> My co-workers and I have been using Drools to great success, but we 
>> ran smack into a performance brick wall recently.
>>
>> In the example below, both BINNING_INPUT and LU_DEVICE_TYPE have 
>> large numbers of associated facts in working memory (BINNING_INPUT 
>> has more than 8 million facts in working memory, LU_DEVICE_TYPE about 
>> 10k.)
>>
>> LU_DEVICE_TYPE models a lookup table.
>>
>> rule "Binning for Attribute: Device_type_desc"
>>   when
>>     $call :
>> BINNING_INPUT()
>>     $device_typeLookup :
>> LU_DEVICE_TYPE(
>>         $call.device_type == device_type
>>       )
>>
>>   then
>>     $call.setDevice_type_desc($device_typeLookup.getDevice_type_desc());
>> end
>>
>> It's a simple enough rule: join on the device_type field.  
>> Unfortunately, this rule and a few others like it are taking FOREVER 
>> to insert.  Even when I cut the number of BINNING_INPUT facts in 
>> working memory down from 8M to 10k.
>>
>> This feels like a basic Drools question.  But I can't seem to find 
>> any help from google.
>>
>> Please advise!
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Dave Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20111219/e936ae29/attachment.html