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

[soumya_sd]

Vincent Legendre wrote
> 
> I did not assume that I've seen all use cases, nor that what I am a
> telling is the absolute truth. See no offense in my previous post.
> 
No offense taken at all. In fact, I would like to thank you for asking
important questions. These questions help me validate my design decisions.
Also, given that I'm new to Drools it also helps me understand it's
strengths and weaknesses. 


Vincent Legendre wrote
> 
> Yes, I was supposing some use case of my own experience, but please note
> it is the first post when you describe what you are really trying to do,
> ie implementing a dymanic filter configured with a web form that generates
> rules to do the filtering job.
> This is indeed highly dynamic, and for 10 rules, the cache will not be
> very relevant.
> And you are perfectly correct when you say that if rules change at each
> request, using a cache won't speed the process. 
>  
My example was to provide with you will enough context regarding a dynamic
filter where are highly dynamic. My user interface will be designed in such
a way to such that the user can change input values (which will then
generate the appropriate underlying rules.) So the user is not directly
writing rules. 


Vincent Legendre wrote
> 
> 
> You want to test the adequation of drools for a use case where a user can
> set a set of filtering rules via a web form to filter some data somewhere
> ... 
> I would say that :
>    - If there is only simple filters you should not use drools (an
> in-memory DB is not so costly, at least not more than a drools' WM, and
> with hibernate you can write queries using a POJO-like syntax which is
> very close to rules' LHS)
> 
>  
This looks like a good alternative. Let me explore this option. Thanks. 



Vincent Legendre wrote
> 
> 
>    - You said that you are looking to drools to allow writing more complex
> rules than simple filter rules (like chaining and so on). In that case,
> SQL won't fit, and then you have to accept a performance overcome just
> because drools does much more than SQL. And to deal with that overcome,
> you have to think about partitionning/caching your rules (but for 10
> rules, it will be difficult)
> 
> 

At this point I think I can accept the performance overhead. Being new to
Drools I was wondering if there is a way to make this stuff run faster. 


--
View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Is-there-a-faster-way-of-doing-this-in-Drools-tp3973888p3974999.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.