Hi, Thanks for the replies. I'm actually working with a big number of large rule sets (ranging from 100 rules to up to 3000), which are generated based on another proprietary language. These are not used system wide, but on a user per user basis and loaded dynamically
In itself, the system handles itself well, as compiled packages are persisted on disk and loaded only when a user requires it. Thing is, the memory footprint (and the size of the persisted packages) has increased significantly when migrating from 4.0.7 to 5.4.0.Final (20% to 30% for the large ones) and I am trying to find ways of trimming this down as much as I can. Going from a package name of 12 characters to 1 actually and rule names to 3-4 characters shaved off 5-10% in most cases, so not so trivial :-) Unfortunately, reducing the number of rules is not a option in my case, so any advice (or explanation on the increase) is most welcome > Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 01:42:47 -0700 > From: dso...@gmail.com > To: rules-users@lists.jboss.org > Subject: Re: [rules-users] Package footprint > > I agree with Wolfgang... can you give us an idea of the rules you are working > with? > Actually: > - using shorter names might be a last-resort, unless you were using really > long names in the first place > - do not use redundant code is a good practice anyway! > - agreed, evals are evils :) > - changing the DialectConfigurations is absolutely dangerous, do that at > your own risk :) > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Package-footprint-tp4019721p4019735.html > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
