Mark _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
If we know that facts will only have their values altered in the
consequence, during the execution of the working memory, we can dispense
with shadow facts - instead we can alter the "setter" to do a retract
and assert. What was the overhead of shadow facts in the end, about 10%?
so this should help the benchmarks. This should also help with problems
such as marcos's, where he is dealing with a million and upwards facts.
- [rules-dev] testDynamicFunction JUnit test fails Déry , Nicolas
- Re: [rules-dev] testDynamicFunction JUnit test fails Mark Proctor
- [rules-dev] Instantiating class with no construct... Mark Proctor
- [rules-dev] dependencies Mark Proctor
- Re: [rules-dev] dependencies Edson Tirelli
- Re: [rules-dev] Instantiating class with no c... Edson Tirelli
- Re: [rules-dev] Instantiating class with ... Mark Proctor
- [rules-dev] shadow facts Mark Proctor
- [rules-dev] BetaNode getConstraints Mark Proctor
- [rules-dev] Optional TMS Mark Proctor
- [rules-dev] Shadow Facts Mark Proctor
- Re: [rules-dev] Shadow Facts Peter Lin
- [rules-dev] hey your still u... Mark Proctor
- Re: [rules-dev] hey your sti... Peter Lin
- Re: [rules-dev] hey your sti... Peter Lin
- Re: [rules-dev] Shadow Facts Mark Proctor
- Re: [rules-dev] Shadow Facts Edson Tirelli
- Re: [rules-dev] Shadow Facts Mark Proctor
