[rules-users] [planner] Performance question

[Geoffrey De Smet]

Op 19-10-11 15:00, Guilherme Kunigami schreef:
>
>
>     In this use case, that is probably a bad idea in my experience.
>     Why? Well I hope this makes any sense:
>     /You need to allow the optimization algorithms to break it now and
>     then to tunnel through a bad search space into another good search
>     space./
>     If it doesn't, don't worry.
>
>
> Hmm, I think I understood it. Allowing infeasible solutions may help 
> to scape from local minima in the space of feasible solutions for example.
Yep :)
>
>>     rule "Avoid conflicting activities"
>>     when
>>     Assignment($room1 : room, $act1: activity, $id : activity.id
>>     <http://activity.id/>)
>>     Assignment(room== $room1, room != null, $act2 : activity,
>>     activity.id <http://activity.id/> > $id)
>>     Conflict(act1 == $act1, act2 == $act2)
>     I would put Conflict first. But try it this way too and let me
>     know which works better ;) I don't know.
>     Stated differently: Instead of checking every 2 simultaneous
>     assignments if they are a conflict,
>     I would check if every 2 conflict assignments are simultaneous
>     (like in examinationScoreRules.drl).
>
>
> Ok! I will perform some stress tests to verify which one works better.
Nice, please report your results to this mailing list. It doesn't matter 
if they are worse, better or equal: it's interesting to know.

Look for "stepLimit" in the examples to see how I do very short stress 
tests when adding extra constraints.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20111019/eafc50a8/attachment.html