[rules-users] [Drools Planner] Proof-of-Concept Stock-planning System

[drools at orbit-x.de]

Thank you, Geoffrey!
 
This is the answer I was hoping for and it confirms my understanding of this problem.
 
Indeed it looks like it will be a standard implementation (since it is (A) and (C)).
 
The reason I was willing to ask the community is that current (non-optimizied prototype solution) takes approx. 32 hours to complete. But I am pretty sure that optimized move factory, rule definitions and engine configuration will move the completion time down to expected 6 hours.
 -----Original-Nachricht----- 
> Von: "Geoffrey De Smet" <ge0ffrey.spam at gmail.com> 
> An: rules-users at lists.jboss.org 
> Datum: 05-04-2012 11:34 
> Betreff: Re: [rules-users] [Drools Planner] Proof-of-Concept Stock-planning System 
> 
> Op 03-04-12 23:10, Reinis schreef:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I want to ask you, guys, if you could guess if it is possible or
> > probable to build such a System with Drools Planner:
> >
> > The system shall plan the best time where the transport unit (TU) has to
> > be input into stock system to reach set delivery deadlines, utilization
> > of resources and load balancing of bottle necks (all expressed as rules).
> >
> > Most of things (resource capacity, route within the stock system, etc.)
> > are given and constant facts. Actually there is only one planning
> > variable - time interval of a transport unit characterizing retention
> > period within a given Resource. Like this:
> >
> > TU#1 is in Resource #A from 11:00 till 11:30<- the optimal interval has
> > to be planned
> Is the value range something like this:
> (A)
> - 10:00 till 10:30
> - 10:30 till 11:00
> - 11:00 till 11:30
> - 11:30 till 12:00
> Or like this?
> (B)
> - 11:00 till 11:15
> - 11:01 till 11:16
> - 11:02 till 11:17
> - 11:03 till 11:18
> ...
> From reading further, I presume (A).
> 
> > TU#1 is in Resource #B from 11:45 till 12:00<- the optimal interval has
> > to be planned
> >
> > TU#1 is in Resource #C from 12:30 till 13:00<- the optimal interval has
> > to be planned
> >
> > I have following problem size and constraints:
> > - TUs per day: 160'000
> > - Amount of resources a TU travel through: 3
> Do the TU need to go through it's 3 resources in a specific order?
> (C) No
> (D) Yes
> I presume it can not go through 2 resources at the same time.
> > - Average smallest time interval: 15 Min
> > - Planning period: 09:00 - 16:00 = 8 hours = 32 intervals
> > - Initial planning window: 4-6 hours
> > - continuous planning multiple batch execution time during the day after
> > addition and/or retraction of number of TUs: 20 minutes
> (E) This is repeated planning (see documentation manual if you haven't 
> already).
> > So the problem size would be(?):
> > (TUs * resources) ^ intervals = (160'000 * 3) ^ 32 = 6.305500958×10¹⁸¹
> That's not a big search space. In some examples I 've seen 10^6800.
> Of course, the search space isn't the only metric to take into account
> (but I haven't found a good way to measure the other metrics,
> such as how-constrained-is-the-problem, how-big-is-the-snowball-effect, 
> ...).
> > I know there is no one answer to this question. I would like only to get
> > your feeling on this problem. Would you take on solving this sort of
> > problem with drools planner?
> Definitely :)
> If it's (A) and (C), it should be an easy, standard implementation.
> If it's (B) and (D), then it becomes interesting :)
> 
> The only part I expect some rough edges is (E).
> I suspect you'll be asking for build-in support for "planning entity 
> locking" to do your continuous planning easily.
>   https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3359
> It's a PITA to do that yourself for now.
> > thanks and br
> > Reinis
> 
> -- 
> With kind regards,
> Geoffrey De Smet