Re: [rules-users] Rules Effective Date
Hello, look at documentation point on datehttps://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/job/drools/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/trunk/target/docs/drools-expert/html_single/index.html#d0e3705on rules attributes *date-effective and date-expires regards Nicolas Heron * 2009/5/27 Srinivas Doddi srinivas_do...@gap.com Hi I am a newbie for Drools and googled for a good time. I would like to know if Drools 4.0.7 and Drools 5 have anything like an “Effective Date” concept? We have a requirement for having a rule written by the Business Analysts and takes effective for a future date, without restarting the application. Is Rules Engine intelligent enough to pick the rules depending on effective dates? Thanks a lot for your help. ***SRINI* ___ 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
Re: [rules-users] moving average rule
There are 2 important concepts related to time windows. First and most important, sliding windows only work in STREAM_MODE, not in CLOUD_MODE (default). Did you set the engine to STREAM_MODE? Second, the session clock becomes really important in STREAM_MODE: what clock are you using? Real time or pseudo clock? []s Edson 2009/5/26 Chris Richmond crichm...@referentia.com Well, it never fires even though the last several values are ALL above my moving averate limit…I never see the output being written out. I modified my limit value to something very very low to ensure the average was beyond that, but still nothing. I understand what you are saying about Expert+Fusion and that was my understanding as well and I have been reading through the docs on that links, however I have not read all of the documentation exhaustively yet. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of samples(syntax wise) for authoring rules taking advantage of those Fusion features. There are isolated one or two line samples, but I guess I am having a difficult time determining how to author rules based on collections of data…think of sensor data over time….so I want to author rules that work on the latest readings plus some configurable amount of readings in the past. From the Fusion features description, it seems ideal….but finding out the nuts and bolts of implementing it is eluding me thus far. I am continuing the reading as well..perhaps I have not come across it yet.. Thanks again for your help. Chris -- *From:* rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org [mailto: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Edson Tirelli *Sent:* Tuesday, May 26, 2009 4:24 PM *To:* Rules Users List *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] moving average rule Chris, Fusion is an extension of Drools Expert. Think about it as all Expert features + some additional features. That is why Drools Fusion docs is just a list of features explained. I assume you looked here already: http://www.jboss.org/drools/documentation.html For both, expert and fusion docs. So, back to your rule, syntax seems correct to me. Why do you say it is not working? What error or symptoms do you see? []s Edson 2009/5/26 Chris Richmond crichm...@referentia.com Hello, I am trying to write a rule for a moving average over values over the last minute using fusion. In general I can’t seem to locate a detailed resource for authoring syntax for these types of rules or rules in general, but specifically, I tried to modify something from the fusion documentation for my purposes using the StockTicker fusion sample. Here is the rule entry I aded to the broker.drl: *rule* Alert when moving average goes below 50 *when* Number( doubleValue 127 ) *from* *accumulate*( StockTick( symbol == ORCL, $price: price ) over window:time( 1m ), average( $price ) ) *then* System.out.println(moving average has gone beyone moving average); *End* * * I basically want to be alerted any time the moving average for ORCL moves above 127 (or whatever criteria I set…I picked that based on the sample data the sample fusion project uses), but it doesn’t seem to be working. I guess if I could locate the definitave samples or guide for authoring these types of rules I could use that, but it’s very difficult to piece together how to author rules utilizing fusion features based on isolated snippets from the fusion guide. Can anyone point me to some reasources for learning rule authoring, especially for taking advantage of the fusion features. Thanks, Chris ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
RE: [rules-users] Rules Effective Date
Hi Srinivas, I would look at the newly released 5.01 GA, specifically at the documentation for Fusion, which focuses on event processing. | Jonathan Ingold | From: Srinivas Doddi [mailto:srinivas_do...@gap.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:41 PM To: rules-users@lists.jboss.org Subject: [rules-users] Rules Effective Date Hi I am a newbie for Drools and googled for a good time. I would like to know if Drools 4.0.7 and Drools 5 have anything like an Effective Date concept? We have a requirement for having a rule written by the Business Analysts and takes effective for a future date, without restarting the application. Is Rules Engine intelligent enough to pick the rules depending on effective dates? Thanks a lot for your help. SRINI ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Rules Effective Date
Hi Nicoloas Thank you for pointing it out. I went through it previously, but somehow missed that point. Hi Jonathan I went through Fusion, but couldn't relate how the Events can be related to the Rules effective dates. And adding to my initial query, So, can we modify the attribute date expires for an existing rule when the application is running, and the rules engine knows about it and expires the rule, without restarting the application? I am talking about 4.0.7 in particular? Also, I see that Rule names should be unique, so does it mean that we can't have 2 rules with same name and different effective date ranges? Sorry for asking these without trying, we are still in the process of brain storming, and need to know what Rules has to offer. I am still in the process of setting up Rules on my pc. Thank you. SRINI ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] keeping running stats
Hello,
I have modified the stockTicker fusion example to keep some running stats,
you can see from the rule snippet below that it injects a stats object based
on the symbol then matches them as updates come in later. You can see for
now I am just updating the running counts and outputting the readings count
on each stock tick and this works fine.
What I would like to do however is only have the running averages,stats
object reflect stock ticks that are still in memory..essentiall only stock
tick items that have not expired. As it is now the count just keeps growing
and growing, I want the count to only reflect the stock ticks within the
expiration time in the past for stock ticks, but I cannot figure out how to
make this happen?Could anyone give me a pointer on how to do this? How
to make the stats object only reflect those stock ticks that have not
expired? I do not know the strategy for this.
Thanks,
Chris
# tells the engine that a StockTick instance will assume the
# role (semantics) of events and that the default retention
# policy will be 2 minutes
declare StockTick
@role( event )
@expires( 1m )
end
# One can even declare helper facts to make rules easier and
# simpler to write and maintain
declare Statistics
symbol : String @key()
average : double
readings : int
total : double
end
rule Setup statistics
when
$c : Company( $s : symbol )
not( Statistics( symbol == $s ) )
then
Statistics s = new Statistics();
s.symbol = $s;
s.readings = s.readings + 1;
insert( s );
end
# a simple rule to show that it is possible to join
# events from an entry-point (stream) with facts
# present in the working memory
rule Update stock stats
agenda-group evaluation
lock-on-active
when
$cp : Company( $sb : symbol )
$st : StockTick( symbol == $sb, $pr : price ) from entry-point
StockTick stream
$stats : Statistics( symbol == $sb )
then
modify( $stats ) { readings = readings + 1};
System.err.println($stats.symbol + readings: + $stats.readings);
// This shows an update on working memory facts with data from joined
events
//modify( $cp ) { currentPrice = $pr }
// Although events are considered immutable, a common pattern is to use
a class
// to represent an event and enrich that event instance with data
derived from other facts/events.
// Bellow we enrich the event instance with the percentual change in
the price,
// based on the previous price
//modify( $st ) { delta = $cp.delta }
//modify( $st ) { readings = 5 }
//System.out.println($st.delta)
end
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
RE: [rules-users] moving average rule
Well I am only modifying the StockTicker example which I believe is using Stream mode and and system time. _ From: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 2:22 AM To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] moving average rule There are 2 important concepts related to time windows. First and most important, sliding windows only work in STREAM_MODE, not in CLOUD_MODE (default). Did you set the engine to STREAM_MODE? Second, the session clock becomes really important in STREAM_MODE: what clock are you using? Real time or pseudo clock? []s Edson 2009/5/26 Chris Richmond crichm...@referentia.com Well, it never fires even though the last several values are ALL above my moving averate limit.I never see the output being written out. I modified my limit value to something very very low to ensure the average was beyond that, but still nothing. I understand what you are saying about Expert+Fusion and that was my understanding as well and I have been reading through the docs on that links, however I have not read all of the documentation exhaustively yet. There doesn't seem to be a lot of samples(syntax wise) for authoring rules taking advantage of those Fusion features. There are isolated one or two line samples, but I guess I am having a difficult time determining how to author rules based on collections of data.think of sensor data over time..so I want to author rules that work on the latest readings plus some configurable amount of readings in the past. From the Fusion features description, it seems ideal..but finding out the nuts and bolts of implementing it is eluding me thus far. I am continuing the reading as well..perhaps I have not come across it yet.. Thanks again for your help. Chris _ From: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 4:24 PM To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] moving average rule Chris, Fusion is an extension of Drools Expert. Think about it as all Expert features + some additional features. That is why Drools Fusion docs is just a list of features explained. I assume you looked here already: http://www.jboss.org/drools/documentation.html For both, expert and fusion docs. So, back to your rule, syntax seems correct to me. Why do you say it is not working? What error or symptoms do you see? []s Edson 2009/5/26 Chris Richmond crichm...@referentia.com Hello, I am trying to write a rule for a moving average over values over the last minute using fusion. In general I can't seem to locate a detailed resource for authoring syntax for these types of rules or rules in general, but specifically, I tried to modify something from the fusion documentation for my purposes using the StockTicker fusion sample. Here is the rule entry I aded to the broker.drl: rule Alert when moving average goes below 50 when Number( doubleValue 127 ) from accumulate( StockTick( symbol == ORCL, $price: price ) over window:time( 1m ), average( $price ) ) then System.out.println(moving average has gone beyone moving average); End I basically want to be alerted any time the moving average for ORCL moves above 127 (or whatever criteria I set.I picked that based on the sample data the sample fusion project uses), but it doesn't seem to be working. I guess if I could locate the definitave samples or guide for authoring these types of rules I could use that, but it's very difficult to piece together how to author rules utilizing fusion features based on isolated snippets from the fusion guide. Can anyone point me to some reasources for learning rule authoring, especially for taking advantage of the fusion features. Thanks, Chris ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re[rules-users] sult Lists from Decision Tables
I have worked directly with DRLs previously, but my new company would like to store their rules in decision tables. Basically, in the past, we would insert a custom object to maintain a list of results from the rules, which was pretty easy to do in a DRL. However, in decision tables, I have not found a good way to create a named parameter for that controlled list without making up a bogus condition (that really doesn't matter). Is there an easy way to pass an object to really only be used in the actions columns? Thanks, Bryan -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Result-Lists-from-Decision-Tables-tp23749077p23749077.html Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] keeping running stats
Hi Chris,
You can use 'accumulate' with sliding time window. Have a look here
http://downloads.jboss.com/drools/docs/5.0.1.26597.FINAL/drools-fusion/html/ch02.html#d0e1169
rule Sound the alarm in case temperature rises above threshold
when
TemperatureThreshold( $max : max )
Number( doubleValue $max ) from accumulate(
SensorReading( $temp : temperature ) over window:time( 10m ),
average( $temp ) )
then
// sound the alarm
end
The engine will automatically discard any SensorReading older than 10
minutes and keep the calculated average consistent.
Is that what you're looking for?
Michal
2009/5/27 Chris Richmond crichm...@referentia.com
Hello,
I have modified the stockTicker fusion example to keep some running stats,
you can see from the rule snippet below that it injects a stats object based
on the symbol then matches them as updates come in later. You can see for
now I am just updating the running counts and outputting the readings count
on each stock tick and this works fine.
What I would like to do however is only have the running averages,stats
object reflect stock ticks that are still in memory….essentiall only stock
tick items that have not expired. As it is now the count just keeps growing
and growing, I want the count to only reflect the stock ticks within the
expiration time in the past for stock ticks, but I cannot figure out how to
make this happen?Could anyone give me a pointer on how to do this? How
to make the stats object only reflect those stock ticks that have not
expired? I do not know the strategy for this.
Thanks,
Chris
# tells the engine that a StockTick instance will assume the
# role (semantics) of events and that the default retention
# policy will be 2 minutes
*declare* StockTick
@role( event )
@expires( 1m )
*end*
# One can even declare helper facts to make rules easier and
# simpler to write and maintain
*declare* Statistics
symbol : String @key()
average : *double*
readings : *int*
total : *double*
*end*
*rule* Setup statistics
*when*
$c : Company( $s : symbol )
*not*( Statistics( symbol == $s ) )
*then*
Statistics s = *new* Statistics();
s.symbol = $s;
s.readings = s.readings + 1;
*insert*( s );
*end*
# a simple rule to show that it is possible to join
# events from an entry-point (stream) with facts
# present in the working memory
*rule* Update stock stats
*agenda-group* evaluation
*lock-on-active*
*when*
$cp : Company( $sb : symbol )
$st : StockTick( symbol == $sb, $pr : price ) *from* entry-point
StockTick
stream
$stats : Statistics( symbol == $sb )
*then*
*modify*( $stats ) { readings = readings + 1};
System.err.println($stats.symbol + readings: + $stats.readings);
// This shows an update on working memory facts with data from joined
events
//modify( $cp ) { currentPrice = $pr }
// Although events are considered immutable, a common pattern is to
use a class
// to represent an event and enrich that event instance with data
derived from other facts/events.
// Bellow we enrich the event instance with the percentual change in
the price,
// based on the previous price
//modify( $st ) { delta = $cp.delta }
//modify( $st ) { readings = 5 }
//System.out.println($st.delta)
*end*
___
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
Re: Re[rules-users] sult Lists from Decision Tables
Hi Bryan, Can you use globals for this ? Regards, Michal On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:21 PM, wasabifan bryan.rick...@libertymutual.comwrote: I have worked directly with DRLs previously, but my new company would like to store their rules in decision tables. Basically, in the past, we would insert a custom object to maintain a list of results from the rules, which was pretty easy to do in a DRL. However, in decision tables, I have not found a good way to create a named parameter for that controlled list without making up a bogus condition (that really doesn't matter). Is there an easy way to pass an object to really only be used in the actions columns? Thanks, Bryan -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Result-Lists-from-Decision-Tables-tp23749077p23749077.html Sent from the drools - user 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
RE: [rules-users] keeping running stats
Yes.tha's what I'm looking for and as a matter of fact I tried to implement
that rule into the stocktick example thusly.I want to see the average over
the last 5m..but this rule NEVER fires and I don't know why
rule identify when the average is over a value
when
Number( doubleValue 1.0 ) from accumulate(
StockTick( $pr : price, symbol == IBM ) over window:time( 5m ),
average( $pr ) )
then
System.out.println(average over 105);
end
_
From: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Michal Bali
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:09 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] keeping running stats
Hi Chris,
You can use 'accumulate' with sliding time window. Have a look here
http://downloads.jboss.com/drools/docs/5.0.1.26597.FINAL/drools-fusion/html/
ch02.html#d0e1169
rule Sound the alarm in case temperature rises above threshold
when
TemperatureThreshold( $max : max )
Number( doubleValue $max ) from accumulate(
SensorReading( $temp : temperature ) over window:time( 10m ),
average( $temp ) )
then
// sound the alarm
end
The engine will automatically discard any SensorReading older than 10
minutes and keep the calculated average consistent.
Is that what you're looking for?
Michal
2009/5/27 Chris Richmond crichm...@referentia.com
Hello,
I have modified the stockTicker fusion example to keep some running stats,
you can see from the rule snippet below that it injects a stats object based
on the symbol then matches them as updates come in later. You can see for
now I am just updating the running counts and outputting the readings count
on each stock tick and this works fine.
What I would like to do however is only have the running averages,stats
object reflect stock ticks that are still in memory..essentiall only stock
tick items that have not expired. As it is now the count just keeps growing
and growing, I want the count to only reflect the stock ticks within the
expiration time in the past for stock ticks, but I cannot figure out how to
make this happen?Could anyone give me a pointer on how to do this? How
to make the stats object only reflect those stock ticks that have not
expired? I do not know the strategy for this.
Thanks,
Chris
# tells the engine that a StockTick instance will assume the
# role (semantics) of events and that the default retention
# policy will be 2 minutes
declare StockTick
@role( event )
@expires( 1m )
end
# One can even declare helper facts to make rules easier and
# simpler to write and maintain
declare Statistics
symbol : String @key()
average : double
readings : int
total : double
end
rule Setup statistics
when
$c : Company( $s : symbol )
not( Statistics( symbol == $s ) )
then
Statistics s = new Statistics();
s.symbol = $s;
s.readings = s.readings + 1;
insert( s );
end
# a simple rule to show that it is possible to join
# events from an entry-point (stream) with facts
# present in the working memory
rule Update stock stats
agenda-group evaluation
lock-on-active
when
$cp : Company( $sb : symbol )
$st : StockTick( symbol == $sb, $pr : price ) from entry-point
StockTick stream
$stats : Statistics( symbol == $sb )
then
modify( $stats ) { readings = readings + 1};
System.err.println($stats.symbol + readings: + $stats.readings);
// This shows an update on working memory facts with data from joined
events
//modify( $cp ) { currentPrice = $pr }
// Although events are considered immutable, a common pattern is to use
a class
// to represent an event and enrich that event instance with data
derived from other facts/events.
// Bellow we enrich the event instance with the percentual change in
the price,
// based on the previous price
//modify( $st ) { delta = $cp.delta }
//modify( $st ) { readings = 5 }
//System.out.println($st.delta)
end
___
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
RE: [rules-users] keeping running stats
Notice I set the average to something very low that I know would be
exceeded.
_
From: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Michal Bali
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:09 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] keeping running stats
Hi Chris,
You can use 'accumulate' with sliding time window. Have a look here
http://downloads.jboss.com/drools/docs/5.0.1.26597.FINAL/drools-fusion/html/
ch02.html#d0e1169
rule Sound the alarm in case temperature rises above threshold
when
TemperatureThreshold( $max : max )
Number( doubleValue $max ) from accumulate(
SensorReading( $temp : temperature ) over window:time( 10m ),
average( $temp ) )
then
// sound the alarm
end
The engine will automatically discard any SensorReading older than 10
minutes and keep the calculated average consistent.
Is that what you're looking for?
Michal
2009/5/27 Chris Richmond crichm...@referentia.com
Hello,
I have modified the stockTicker fusion example to keep some running stats,
you can see from the rule snippet below that it injects a stats object based
on the symbol then matches them as updates come in later. You can see for
now I am just updating the running counts and outputting the readings count
on each stock tick and this works fine.
What I would like to do however is only have the running averages,stats
object reflect stock ticks that are still in memory..essentiall only stock
tick items that have not expired. As it is now the count just keeps growing
and growing, I want the count to only reflect the stock ticks within the
expiration time in the past for stock ticks, but I cannot figure out how to
make this happen?Could anyone give me a pointer on how to do this? How
to make the stats object only reflect those stock ticks that have not
expired? I do not know the strategy for this.
Thanks,
Chris
# tells the engine that a StockTick instance will assume the
# role (semantics) of events and that the default retention
# policy will be 2 minutes
declare StockTick
@role( event )
@expires( 1m )
end
# One can even declare helper facts to make rules easier and
# simpler to write and maintain
declare Statistics
symbol : String @key()
average : double
readings : int
total : double
end
rule Setup statistics
when
$c : Company( $s : symbol )
not( Statistics( symbol == $s ) )
then
Statistics s = new Statistics();
s.symbol = $s;
s.readings = s.readings + 1;
insert( s );
end
# a simple rule to show that it is possible to join
# events from an entry-point (stream) with facts
# present in the working memory
rule Update stock stats
agenda-group evaluation
lock-on-active
when
$cp : Company( $sb : symbol )
$st : StockTick( symbol == $sb, $pr : price ) from entry-point
StockTick stream
$stats : Statistics( symbol == $sb )
then
modify( $stats ) { readings = readings + 1};
System.err.println($stats.symbol + readings: + $stats.readings);
// This shows an update on working memory facts with data from joined
events
//modify( $cp ) { currentPrice = $pr }
// Although events are considered immutable, a common pattern is to use
a class
// to represent an event and enrich that event instance with data
derived from other facts/events.
// Bellow we enrich the event instance with the percentual change in
the price,
// based on the previous price
//modify( $st ) { delta = $cp.delta }
//modify( $st ) { readings = 5 }
//System.out.println($st.delta)
end
___
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
RE: [rules-users] keeping running stats
I think the problem is that the stockticks aren't being processed unless I
use the:
From entry-point StockTick stream
But I can't combine from accumulate with that from statement successfully
in that sample I sent. I think that is the problem . The sample I sent,
none of those ever get processed since it is not looking at the proper entry
point.
_
From: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Michal Bali
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:09 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] keeping running stats
Hi Chris,
You can use 'accumulate' with sliding time window. Have a look here
http://downloads.jboss.com/drools/docs/5.0.1.26597.FINAL/drools-fusion/html/
ch02.html#d0e1169
rule Sound the alarm in case temperature rises above threshold
when
TemperatureThreshold( $max : max )
Number( doubleValue $max ) from accumulate(
SensorReading( $temp : temperature ) over window:time( 10m ),
average( $temp ) )
then
// sound the alarm
end
The engine will automatically discard any SensorReading older than 10
minutes and keep the calculated average consistent.
Is that what you're looking for?
Michal
2009/5/27 Chris Richmond crichm...@referentia.com
Hello,
I have modified the stockTicker fusion example to keep some running stats,
you can see from the rule snippet below that it injects a stats object based
on the symbol then matches them as updates come in later. You can see for
now I am just updating the running counts and outputting the readings count
on each stock tick and this works fine.
What I would like to do however is only have the running averages,stats
object reflect stock ticks that are still in memory..essentiall only stock
tick items that have not expired. As it is now the count just keeps growing
and growing, I want the count to only reflect the stock ticks within the
expiration time in the past for stock ticks, but I cannot figure out how to
make this happen?Could anyone give me a pointer on how to do this? How
to make the stats object only reflect those stock ticks that have not
expired? I do not know the strategy for this.
Thanks,
Chris
# tells the engine that a StockTick instance will assume the
# role (semantics) of events and that the default retention
# policy will be 2 minutes
declare StockTick
@role( event )
@expires( 1m )
end
# One can even declare helper facts to make rules easier and
# simpler to write and maintain
declare Statistics
symbol : String @key()
average : double
readings : int
total : double
end
rule Setup statistics
when
$c : Company( $s : symbol )
not( Statistics( symbol == $s ) )
then
Statistics s = new Statistics();
s.symbol = $s;
s.readings = s.readings + 1;
insert( s );
end
# a simple rule to show that it is possible to join
# events from an entry-point (stream) with facts
# present in the working memory
rule Update stock stats
agenda-group evaluation
lock-on-active
when
$cp : Company( $sb : symbol )
$st : StockTick( symbol == $sb, $pr : price ) from entry-point
StockTick stream
$stats : Statistics( symbol == $sb )
then
modify( $stats ) { readings = readings + 1};
System.err.println($stats.symbol + readings: + $stats.readings);
// This shows an update on working memory facts with data from joined
events
//modify( $cp ) { currentPrice = $pr }
// Although events are considered immutable, a common pattern is to use
a class
// to represent an event and enrich that event instance with data
derived from other facts/events.
// Bellow we enrich the event instance with the percentual change in
the price,
// based on the previous price
//modify( $st ) { delta = $cp.delta }
//modify( $st ) { readings = 5 }
//System.out.println($st.delta)
end
___
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
Re: Re[rules-users] sult Lists from Decision Tables
Possibly. Is that set by the Variables keyword in Decision Tables? Then in the Java code you just set the global variable by session.setGlobal(string, object)? Michal Bali-2 wrote: Hi Bryan, Can you use globals for this ? Regards, Michal -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Result-Lists-from-Decision-Tables-tp23749077p23752966.html Sent from the drools - user 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] fact granularity, performance, and other questions
Hi,
I could use some experienced guidance. I'm in the process of
evaluating Drools for use of using in a real-time transactional
environment to process about 3000 messages/second. I realize a lot of
this depends on the type and quantity of rules, hardware, etc. I'm
curious what steps others have taken to improve performance and if
there are any recommendations for my case detailed below.
A few specific questions I have are:
- Should each field in a message be a fact? (more info on my message
below) What fact granularity have you settled on in your usage and
why?
- Does the order of the conditions in a rule affect performance, the
execution order, or the structure of the Rete network?
- Does the order the facts are inserted into a stateless session (as
a list via the CommandFactory.newInsertElements) affect performance at
all?
The message is an EDI format and will typically have anywhere from 80
to 200 fields, potentially more. The message is divided into
transactions, then segments, then fields. We have an object model
that represents the message. We're using a stateless session and most
of the rules will modify fields or add fields and segments based on
the values of other fields. Currently, I flatten the object model
into a List containing the message, transactions, segments, and each
field, and then insert the list into the stateless session and fire.
I'm avoiding sequential mode for now until we have a better idea of
our requirements.
Here's a simplified example of what I'm doing now (using json-esque
syntax instead of the EDI format).
message {
segment {
SG:header
A0:agents
}
segment {
SG:agent
A1:000
A2:JAMES
A3:BOND
}
segment {
SG:agent
A1:86
A2:MAXWELL
A3:SMART
}
}
Each field has an id and a value. For this message, I would insert 14
facts: the message object, 3 segments objects, and 10 field objects.
rule set James Bond's A1 to 007
when
$a1 : Field(id == A1, value != 007)
Field(id == A2, value == JAMES)
Field(id == A3, value == BOND)
then
$a1.setValue(007);
update($a1);
end
A relatively more complicated, but typical rule would be set James
Bond's A1 to 007 iff he's the second agent in the message and one of
the other agents' first names does not contain AUSTIN and an agency
segment exists
The above example assumes each segment and field is a fact and I think
it's a clean and flexible approach, but I'm concerned about the
overhead of inserting potentially 250 facts for each message. The
only other alternatives I can think of seem to have their own set of
problems:
1. limit the fields that rules can be written against to a limited
subset, which may not be feasible depending on how the requirements
evolve, and only assert those as facts. Doing this seems to double
the number of transactions per second in my nonscientific benchmark.
2. insert the Message object as a single fact and then write a slew of
accessor methods in that object to get at all possible fields in the
tree: getA1FromSecondAgentSegmentInFirstTransaction(). This seems
like it might perform well, but could be very messy.
3. provide an api in the message object model to find various
occurrences of fields in the messages, then use eval() in the rule.
like eval(msg.findSegment(agent, secondOccurrence).getField(A1)).
I've read that would be less efficient once the ruleset grows.
I'm sure many of you have dealt with this type scenario before, what
did you determine the best approach to be?
Thanks,
David
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] fact granularity, performance, and other questions
David,
- Does the order of the conditions in a rule affect performance, the
execution order, or the structure of the Rete network?
Yes, quite a lot has been written about this. The drools documentation
has a few paragraphs with good heuristics...
A popular read seems to be this paper, which provides good insight
into RETE performance aspects:
Production Matching for Large Learning Systems (Rete/UL)
by Robert B. Doorenbos
PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, January 31, 1995
- Does the order the facts are inserted into a stateless session (as
a list via the CommandFactory.newInsertElements) affect performance
at
all?
All I can say that this is true (it has impact) for statefull
sessions. The deal here is how often the agenda may get changed while
inserting objects.
I have no experience with stateless sessions and I hope others do;-)
- Should each field in a message be a fact? (more info on my message
below) What fact granularity have you settled on in your usage and
why?
I would suggest to start with a model which is most natural to your
rules (with the lowest WTF factor) and take it from there.
I assume that you need to correlate information from all segments of a
message?
I would stay well clear from your option 3 (eval()) - just because I
always do ;-)
Eval() simply defies RETE optimizations so it can be very sensitive to
both number of facts and number of rules (using eval).
If you know the field IDs (which I assume you would, using an EDI
formant) - I would see whether you can avoid the field facts and turn
them into slots (attributes) instead.
But not to the extend you outline in #2, that seems to be too awkward.
If you have buy another server ;-)
what did you determine the best approach to be?
I am pretty sure that there is no generic best approach.
I would proceed trying to understand the nature of the rules (are they
regular, ie following the same scheme, can they be generated?) and the
data and create
regression performance test-suite ASAP to monitor performance during
development.
In our application we for example have analyzed bottlenecks and found
that (no surprise) accessing properties like facta.factb.value is
slower compared to facta.facbtValue - that's in 4.07 - due to the
different mechanism the value is obtained. From there we have added
about three of these shortcut accessors. However we have first
focused on optimizing the rules themself to avoid excessive matching
in the first place so there was no need for us to flatten our entire
model.
my 0.02EUR
-- Ingomar
Am 28.05.2009 um 02:17 schrieb David Zeigler:
Hi,
I could use some experienced guidance. I'm in the process of
evaluating Drools for use of using in a real-time transactional
environment to process about 3000 messages/second. I realize a lot of
this depends on the type and quantity of rules, hardware, etc. I'm
curious what steps others have taken to improve performance and if
there are any recommendations for my case detailed below.
A few specific questions I have are:
- Should each field in a message be a fact? (more info on my message
below) What fact granularity have you settled on in your usage and
why?
- Does the order of the conditions in a rule affect performance, the
execution order, or the structure of the Rete network?
- Does the order the facts are inserted into a stateless session (as
a list via the CommandFactory.newInsertElements) affect performance at
all?
The message is an EDI format and will typically have anywhere from 80
to 200 fields, potentially more. The message is divided into
transactions, then segments, then fields. We have an object model
that represents the message. We're using a stateless session and most
of the rules will modify fields or add fields and segments based on
the values of other fields. Currently, I flatten the object model
into a List containing the message, transactions, segments, and each
field, and then insert the list into the stateless session and fire.
I'm avoiding sequential mode for now until we have a better idea of
our requirements.
Here's a simplified example of what I'm doing now (using json-esque
syntax instead of the EDI format).
message {
segment {
SG:header
A0:agents
}
segment {
SG:agent
A1:000
A2:JAMES
A3:BOND
}
segment {
SG:agent
A1:86
A2:MAXWELL
A3:SMART
}
}
Each field has an id and a value. For this message, I would insert 14
facts: the message object, 3 segments objects, and 10 field objects.
rule set James Bond's A1 to 007
when
$a1 : Field(id == A1, value != 007)
Field(id == A2, value == JAMES)
Field(id == A3, value == BOND)
then
$a1.setValue(007);
update($a1);
end
A relatively more complicated, but typical rule would be set James
Bond's A1 to 007 iff he's the second agent in the message and one of
the other agents' first names does not contain AUSTIN and an agency
segment exists
The above example assumes each segment and field is
Re: [rules-users] fact granularity, performance, and other questions
To address some points in order:
Yes, having each field in a message as a fact is the most straightforward. The
catch is that the rejoining conditions should be as fast as possible. I'm
thinking this structure would be best:
class Message {
...message level properties...
}
class Segment {
public Message message;
public int position;
...Segment level properties
}
Then the rules would be like this:
when
m: Message(...foo...);
s0: Segment(position == 0, message == m, ...bar...)
s1: Segment(position == 1, message == m, ...bas...)
then
...
end
That's about as fast as you'll get with this setup, I figure. And you're
right, it is important to list the conditions in a certain order: with the
position == n condition before the message == m condition, MANY Segments in
working memory are eliminated from consideration before getting to the more
expensive cross object join. (Even though the cross object condition is about
as cheap as you can get, a straight == check.)
I'm not sure about the answer to the fact insertion order question vis a vis
performance in a stateless session. My guess is no effect, but probably a
question for the devs. (Or a bit 'o' experimentation.)
It would be nice if your item #2 could be accomplished with a class property
that's a multidimensional String array, though it throws an array out of bounds
exception if you try testing for an array position that's too high. Another
way (which I think is what you suggest below) would be to have a one time
generated class to with the following structure:
class Fact {
String[][][] facts;
public String geta0s0t0() {
if(facts.length =1 facts[0].length = 1 facts[0][0].length = 0) {
return facts[0][0][0];
} else {
return ;
}
}
}
Initialize each one with a String[][][] and you're on your way. This would
absolutely be faster than the first method above, probably by several orders of
magnitude.
Another approach would be to see how hard it would be to alter mvel so it
evaluates the array[out_of_bounds_index] expressions to false instead of
throwing an exception. Maybe for the long term...
--- On Wed, 5/27/09, David Zeigler dzeig...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Zeigler dzeig...@gmail.com
Subject: [rules-users] fact granularity, performance, and other questions
To: Rules Users List rules-users@lists.jboss.org
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 7:17 PM
Hi,
I could use some experienced guidance. I'm in the
process of
evaluating Drools for use of using in a real-time
transactional
environment to process about 3000 messages/second. I
realize a lot of
this depends on the type and quantity of rules, hardware,
etc. I'm
curious what steps others have taken to improve performance
and if
there are any recommendations for my case detailed below.
A few specific questions I have are:
- Should each field in a message be a fact? (more info on
my message
below) What fact granularity have you settled on in
your usage and
why?
- Does the order of the conditions in a rule affect
performance, the
execution order, or the structure of the Rete network?
- Does the order the facts are inserted into a stateless
session (as
a list via the CommandFactory.newInsertElements) affect
performance at
all?
The message is an EDI format and will typically have
anywhere from 80
to 200 fields, potentially more. The message is
divided into
transactions, then segments, then fields. We have an
object model
that represents the message. We're using a stateless
session and most
of the rules will modify fields or add fields and segments
based on
the values of other fields. Currently, I flatten the
object model
into a List containing the message, transactions, segments,
and each
field, and then insert the list into the stateless session
and fire.
I'm avoiding sequential mode for now until we have a better
idea of
our requirements.
Here's a simplified example of what I'm doing now (using
json-esque
syntax instead of the EDI format).
message {
segment {
SG:header
A0:agents
}
segment {
SG:agent
A1:000
A2:JAMES
A3:BOND
}
segment {
SG:agent
A1:86
A2:MAXWELL
A3:SMART
}
}
Each field has an id and a value. For this message, I
would insert 14
facts: the message object, 3 segments objects, and 10
field objects.
rule set James Bond's A1 to 007
when
$a1 : Field(id == A1, value != 007)
Field(id == A2, value == JAMES)
Field(id == A3, value == BOND)
then
$a1.setValue(007);
update($a1);
end
A relatively more complicated, but typical rule would be
set James
Bond's A1 to 007 iff he's the second agent in the message
and one of
the other agents' first names does not contain AUSTIN and
an agency
segment exists
The above example assumes each segment and field is a fact
and I think
it's a clean and flexible approach, but I'm concerned about
the
overhead of
Re: [rules-users] keeping running stats
Definitively. That for sure will cause a problem, because each entry
point is like a partition in the data set space.
To make this work, just use the from entry-point:
Number( doubleValue 1.0 ) *from* *accumulate*(
StockTick( $pr : price, symbol == IBM ) over window:time( 5m )
from entry-point StockTick stream,
average( $pr ) )
[]s
Edson
2009/5/27 Chris Richmond crichm...@referentia.com
I think the problem is that the stockticks aren’t being processed unless
I use the:
From entry-point “StockTick stream”
But I can’t combine “from accumulate” with that from statement
successfully in that sample I sent. I think that is the problem . The
sample I sent, none of those ever get processed since it is not looking at
the proper entry point…
--
*From:* rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org [mailto:
rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Michal Bali
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:09 AM
*To:* Rules Users List
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] keeping running stats
Hi Chris,
You can use 'accumulate' with sliding time window. Have a look here
http://downloads.jboss.com/drools/docs/5.0.1.26597.FINAL/drools-fusion/html/ch02.html#d0e1169
rule Sound the alarm in case temperature rises above threshold
when
TemperatureThreshold( $max : max )
Number( doubleValue $max ) from accumulate(
SensorReading( $temp : temperature ) over window:time( 10m ),
average( $temp ) )
then
// sound the alarm
end
The engine will automatically discard any SensorReading older than 10
minutes and keep the calculated average consistent.
Is that what you're looking for?
Michal
2009/5/27 Chris Richmond crichm...@referentia.com
Hello,
I have modified the stockTicker fusion example to keep some running stats,
you can see from the rule snippet below that it injects a stats object based
on the symbol then matches them as updates come in later. You can see for
now I am just updating the running counts and outputting the readings count
on each stock tick and this works fine.
What I would like to do however is only have the running averages,stats
object reflect stock ticks that are still in memory….essentiall only stock
tick items that have not expired. As it is now the count just keeps growing
and growing, I want the count to only reflect the stock ticks within the
expiration time in the past for stock ticks, but I cannot figure out how to
make this happen?Could anyone give me a pointer on how to do this? How
to make the stats object only reflect those stock ticks that have not
expired? I do not know the strategy for this.
Thanks,
Chris
# tells the engine that a StockTick instance will assume the
# role (semantics) of events and that the default retention
# policy will be 2 minutes
*declare* StockTick
@role( event )
@expires( 1m )
*end*
# One can even declare helper facts to make rules easier and
# simpler to write and maintain
*declare* Statistics
symbol : String @key()
average : *double*
readings : *int*
total : *double*
*end*
*rule* Setup statistics
*when*
$c : Company( $s : symbol )
*not*( Statistics( symbol == $s ) )
*then*
Statistics s = *new* Statistics();
s.symbol = $s;
s.readings = s.readings + 1;
*insert*( s );
*end*
# a simple rule to show that it is possible to join
# events from an entry-point (stream) with facts
# present in the working memory
*rule* Update stock stats
*agenda-group* evaluation
*lock-on-active*
*when*
$cp : Company( $sb : symbol )
$st : StockTick( symbol == $sb, $pr : price ) *from* entry-point
StockTick
stream
$stats : Statistics( symbol == $sb )
*then*
*modify*( $stats ) { readings = readings + 1};
System.err.println($stats.symbol + readings: + $stats.readings);
// This shows an update on working memory facts with data from joined
events
//modify( $cp ) { currentPrice = $pr }
// Although events are considered immutable, a common pattern is to
use a class
// to represent an event and enrich that event instance with data
derived from other facts/events.
// Bellow we enrich the event instance with the percentual change in
the price,
// based on the previous price
//modify( $st ) { delta = $cp.delta }
//modify( $st ) { readings = 5 }
//System.out.println($st.delta)
*end*
___
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
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
[rules-users] Date questions
Hi guys, I'm looking to do the following and I was wondering how to use Date objects in Drools. This is what I currently have: rule Difference between end and start time is less than a very small (threshold) value. *salience* 100 when *obs*: ObsClass((endTime - startTime) someVerySmallValue) then System.out.*println*(Difference between end and start time is less than a very small (threshold) value.); End rule Check if user defined time frame falls between startTime and endTime variables *salience* 100 when *obs*: ObsClass((endTime - userDefinedTime) 0 (userDefinedTime - startTime) 0) then System.out.println(Check if user defined time frame falls between startTime and endTime variables) end The problem I'm having with dates is in comparing them. The mathematical portion of the rules above kind of explain what I want to do but I doubt I'll be able to achieve my goals. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Armaghan ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] fact granularity, performance, and other questions
I also think that the approach proposed by Greg of having a Message fact
type and various Segment fact types would let you write efficient and
maintainable rules. (The extreme splitting into Field facts has several
drawbacks, as has been pointed out, and also: 'value' is always a string,
so you lose type checking.) One thing I could not see is the effect of
the structural layer of transactions. And another one: are there several
(sub)types of Segment? If so, it will be possible of writing rules against
(abstract) base types, e.g.
abstract class Segment
class DebitSeg extends Segment
class CreditSeg extends Segment
rule notPositive
when
$s : Segment( amount = 0 )
then
weird( $s );
Also, Segment subtypes might implement interfaces, and its
also possible to use them as fact names in patterns.
-W
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:17 AM, David Zeigler dzeig...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I could use some experienced guidance. I'm in the process of
evaluating Drools for use of using in a real-time transactional
environment to process about 3000 messages/second. I realize a lot of
this depends on the type and quantity of rules, hardware, etc. I'm
curious what steps others have taken to improve performance and if
there are any recommendations for my case detailed below.
A few specific questions I have are:
- Should each field in a message be a fact? (more info on my message
below) What fact granularity have you settled on in your usage and
why?
- Does the order of the conditions in a rule affect performance, the
execution order, or the structure of the Rete network?
- Does the order the facts are inserted into a stateless session (as
a list via the CommandFactory.newInsertElements) affect performance at
all?
The message is an EDI format and will typically have anywhere from 80
to 200 fields, potentially more. The message is divided into
transactions, then segments, then fields. We have an object model
that represents the message. We're using a stateless session and most
of the rules will modify fields or add fields and segments based on
the values of other fields. Currently, I flatten the object model
into a List containing the message, transactions, segments, and each
field, and then insert the list into the stateless session and fire.
I'm avoiding sequential mode for now until we have a better idea of
our requirements.
Here's a simplified example of what I'm doing now (using json-esque
syntax instead of the EDI format).
message {
segment {
SG:header
A0:agents
}
segment {
SG:agent
A1:000
A2:JAMES
A3:BOND
}
segment {
SG:agent
A1:86
A2:MAXWELL
A3:SMART
}
}
Each field has an id and a value. For this message, I would insert 14
facts: the message object, 3 segments objects, and 10 field objects.
rule set James Bond's A1 to 007
when
$a1 : Field(id == A1, value != 007)
Field(id == A2, value == JAMES)
Field(id == A3, value == BOND)
then
$a1.setValue(007);
update($a1);
end
A relatively more complicated, but typical rule would be set James
Bond's A1 to 007 iff he's the second agent in the message and one of
the other agents' first names does not contain AUSTIN and an agency
segment exists
The above example assumes each segment and field is a fact and I think
it's a clean and flexible approach, but I'm concerned about the
overhead of inserting potentially 250 facts for each message. The
only other alternatives I can think of seem to have their own set of
problems:
1. limit the fields that rules can be written against to a limited
subset, which may not be feasible depending on how the requirements
evolve, and only assert those as facts. Doing this seems to double
the number of transactions per second in my nonscientific benchmark.
2. insert the Message object as a single fact and then write a slew of
accessor methods in that object to get at all possible fields in the
tree: getA1FromSecondAgentSegmentInFirstTransaction(). This seems
like it might perform well, but could be very messy.
3. provide an api in the message object model to find various
occurrences of fields in the messages, then use eval() in the rule.
like eval(msg.findSegment(agent, secondOccurrence).getField(A1)).
I've read that would be less efficient once the ruleset grows.
I'm sure many of you have dealt with this type scenario before, what
did you determine the best approach to be?
Thanks,
David
___
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
