that's assuming sumatra is half way done, which it isn't.
:)
peter
On 4/21/06, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> While you are at it stick sumatra behind your interfaces - so then we
> have 3 algorithm implementations :)
>
> Mark
> Peter Lin wrote:
> > yeah... I don't see why not. feel free to update the performance test
> > that's already in the examples directory.
> >
> > peter
> >
> >
> > On 4/21/06, Alexander Bagerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Peter,
> >> Would it be possible to make tests flexible enough that we can profile
> >> reteoo and leaps at the same time? It 's as simple as getting RuleBase
> >>
> >> protected RuleBase getLeapsRuleBase() throws Exception {
> >> return new org.drools.leaps.RuleBaseImpl();
> >> }
> >> protected RuleBase getReteRuleBase() throws Exception {
> >> return new RuleBaseImpl();
> >> }
> >>
> >> everything else should be pretty much the same
> >>
> >> On 4/21/06, Peter Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> http://woolfel.blogspot.com/2006/04/more-drools-benchmark-planned.html
> >>> http://woolfel.blogspot.com/2006/04/more-drools3-performance.html
> >>>
> >>> Here are some more performance numbers for drools 3, and ideas for
> >>>
> >> further
> >>
> >>> tests
> >>>
> >>> peter
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
>
>
