Re: JESS: On the Performance of Logical Retractions
I got this one, Ernest :-) Try import jess.*; On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Nessrine Nassou < kachroudi.nessr...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi to all, i need help please. How can i import the jess class "Rete" in > java application? > > > thanks for help > > -- > *From:* Ernest Friedman-Hill > *To:* jess-users@sandia.gov > *Sent:* Mon, June 6, 2011 1:37:16 PM > *Subject:* Re: JESS: On the Performance of Logical Retractions > > I don't think there's a particular reason in general. Retracting a fact > takes only a little longer than asserting one, on average. But if we assume > liberal use of "logical", retracting a single fact could result in a sort of > "cascade effect" whereby retracting a single fact would result in many other > facts, and many activations, being removed also due to dependencies. All of > that would take time. Still, your case seems extreme. Maybe there's > something pathological about this particular case. > > > On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Md Oliya wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I am doing some experiments with a set of rules which contain the > "logical" CE. > > I intend to see the performance of Jess on a set of assertions as well as > retractions. > > > > After some experiments, I found that the runtime for assertions is much > less than that of retractions. > > In fact, the performance on retractions is so bad that I would rather re > (run) jess on a retracted kb. > > > > > > A sample test case: > > The KB size, number of assertions, number of retractions, and number of > rules are 100K, 50K, 1k, and 100, respectively. > > runtimes are >> initial run: 860ms, assertions:320ms -- retractions: > 4s. > > > > > > Would you please give some hints on the reason? > > > > > > Thanks in advance. > > --Oli. > > - > Ernest Friedman-Hill > Informatics & Decision Sciences, Sandia National Laboratories > PO Box 969, MS 9012, Livermore, CA 94550 > http://www.jessrules.com > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users y...@address.com' > in the BODY of a message to majord...@sandia.gov, NOT to the list > (use your own address!) List problems? Notify owner-jess-us...@sandia.gov. > > > -- Cheers, Jason -- Morris Technical Solutions LLC consult...@morris-technical-solutions.com (517) 304-5883
Re: JESS: On the Performance of Logical Retractions
Hi to all, i need help please. How can i import the jess class "Rete" in java application? thanks for help From: Ernest Friedman-Hill To: jess-users@sandia.gov Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 1:37:16 PM Subject: Re: JESS: On the Performance of Logical Retractions I don't think there's a particular reason in general. Retracting a fact takes only a little longer than asserting one, on average. But if we assume liberal use of "logical", retracting a single fact could result in a sort of "cascade effect" whereby retracting a single fact would result in many other facts, and many activations, being removed also due to dependencies. All of that would take time. Still, your case seems extreme. Maybe there's something pathological about this particular case. On Jun 5, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Md Oliya wrote: > Hi, > > I am doing some experiments with a set of rules which contain the "logical" CE. > I intend to see the performance of Jess on a set of assertions as well as >retractions. > > After some experiments, I found that the runtime for assertions is much less >than that of retractions. > In fact, the performance on retractions is so bad that I would rather re > (run) >jess on a retracted kb. > > > A sample test case: > The KB size, number of assertions, number of retractions, and number of > rules >are 100K, 50K, 1k, and 100, respectively. > runtimes are >> initial run: 860ms, assertions:320ms -- retractions: 4s. > > > Would you please give some hints on the reason? > > > Thanks in advance. > --Oli. - Ernest Friedman-Hill Informatics & Decision Sciences, Sandia National Laboratories PO Box 969, MS 9012, Livermore, CA 94550 http://www.jessrules.com To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users y...@address.com' in the BODY of a message to majord...@sandia.gov, NOT to the list (use your own address!) List problems? Notify owner-jess-us...@sandia.gov.
JESS: Final call for papers: 8th CHR workshop
Apologies if you receive multiple copies Call for Papers Eighth International Workshop on Constraint Handling Rules CHR 2011 September 9, 2011 Cairo, Egypt Co-located with the Second CHR Summer School http://met.guc.edu.eg/events/chr2011/ws.html Introduction The Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) language has become a major declarative specification formalism and implementation language for constraint reasoning algorithms and applications. Algorithms are often specified using inference rules, rewrite rules, sequents, proof rules or logical axioms that can be directly written in CHR. Its clean semantics facilitates program design, analysis and transformation. See the CHR website (http://dtai.cs.kuleuven.be/CHR/) for more information. The aim of the CHR workshop series is to stimulate and promote international research and collaboration on topics related to the Constraint Handling Rules language. The workshop is a lively, friendly forum for presenting and discussing new results, interesting applications, and work in progress. Previous CHR workshops were organized in 2004 in Ulm (Germany), in 2005 in Sitges (Spain) at ICLP, in 2006 in Venice (Italy) at ICALP, in 2007 in Porto (Portgual) at ICLP, in 2008 in Hagenberg (Austria) at RTA, in 2009 in Pasadena (California, US) at ICLP and in 2010 in Edinburgh (Scotland) at ICLP. The workshop proceedings will be published as a technical report. Topics of Interest -- The workshop calls for full papers and short papers describing ongoing work on any aspect of CHR and related approaches. The following topics are relevant (this list is non-exhaustive): - (Logical) Algorithms - Applications - Comparisons with Related Approaches - Constraint Solvers - Critical Assessment - Expressivity and Complexity - Implementations and Optimization - Language Extensions (Types, Modules, ...) - Program Analysis - Program Transformation and Generation - Programming Environments (Debugging) - Programming Pearls - Programming Tools - Retractable Constraints - Semantics - System Descriptions Important Dates --- * Paper Registration (Abstract): June 14, 2011 * Paper Submission: June 21, 2011 * Notification of Authors:July 21, 2011 * Final version due: August 16, 2011 * Workshop date: September 9, 2011 Submission Information -- All papers must describe original, previously unpublished research, and must not simultaneously be submitted for publication elsewhere. They must be written in English. There are four submission categories: 1. technical papers for describing technically sound, innovative ideas that can advance the state of the art of logic programming; 2. application papers, where the emphasis will be on their impact on the application domain; 3. system and tool papers, where the emphasis will be on the novelty, practicality, usability and general availability of the systems and tools described; 4. technical communications, aimed at describing recent developments, new projects, and other materials that are not ready for main publication as standard papers. Technical papers, application papers, and system and tool papers must not exceed 15 pages including bibliography. The limit for technical communications is 10 pages. The authors are encouraged to submit their papers in Springer LNCS format. General information about the Springer LNCS series and the LNCS authors' instructions are available at the Springer LNCS/LNAI home page (http://www.springeronline.com/lncs/). Submissions can be made via the Easychair submission system, available at http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=chr2011. Accepted papers will be published in a technical report. Organization Program Committee: * Slim Abdennadher, German University in Cairo, Egypt * Henning Christiansen, Roskilde University, Denmark * Francois Fages, INRIA Rocquencourt, France * Thom Fruehwirth, Universitaet Ulm, Germany * Maurizio Gabbrielli, Universita di Bologna, Italy * Remy Haemmerle, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain * Eric Monfroy, Universite de Nantes, France * Paolo Pilozzi, K.U.Leuven, Belgium * Jon Sneyers, K.U.Leuven, Belgium (chair) * Peter J. Stuckey, NICTA Victoria Laboratory, Australia * Armin Wolf, Fraunhofer FIRST, Germany W
