[rules-users] Is there a faster way of doing this in Drools ?

[soumya_sd]

laune wrote
> 
> On 9 May 2012 19:52, soumya_sd <soumya_sd@> wrote:
> 
>>
>> laune wrote
>> >
>> > Merely filtering a subset of data items from a collection according to
>> > user's changing needs and whims is NOT the primary use case of a
>> > production
>> > rule system.  This kind of problem has been solved adequately and
>> > efficiently by SQL queries or some similar DB query technique.
>> >
>> > It is true that such filtering rules, if compiled and stored in a
>> > KnowledgeBase, can achieve the same thing, but, since rules are
>> targeted
>> > at
>> > a more sophisticated use cases, this will never be as efficient as a
>> > simple
>> > query system.
>> >
>> > -W
>> >
>> >
>>
>> you bring up an excellent point.
>>
>> What if the data is streaming in nature and is not stored in a database
>> and
>> outside of your control.
>>
> 
> It you can insert it into a WM, it can't be "outside of your control". If
> both data
> and selection rules arrive at random, it's going to be chaotic. Some sort
> of higher order control pattern will have to take care of that...
>  

Correct. Pardon my language. What I really meant by "outside of my control"
is that source databases are not controlled by me. I query external
databases at runtime to get the results I need and then filter a subset
based on the user defined needs. 

Currently I'm using Apache Camel for getting my data from remote sources. 





laune wrote
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Another approach is to cache the data locally (in a database) and then
>> use
>> SQL to filter it.
>>
>> I decided not to use the database approach because of two reasons.
>>
>> 1. The database write operation may be expensive.
>>
> 
> Storing a record in a DB is not really expensive.
> 
> 
>> 2. In the future I may decide apply more complex consequence to my rules
>> than just filtering.
>>
> 
> The effort for processing of selected entities is the same, irrespective
> of
> their source, be it
> a DB or a WM. Compiling some processing statements could be done by
> invoking the
> Java compiler, without the additional overhead of compiling DRL first.
> 
>  

I didn't understand what you mean by "Compiling some processing statements
could be done by
invoking the Java compiler, without the additional overhead of compiling DRL
first.". 


 




--
View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Is-there-a-faster-way-of-doing-this-in-Drools-tp3973888p3974949.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.