Re: [rules-users] help with diagnosing CEP performance issue
ah, events werent being evicted because RHS was only evaluated during
fire(), which was after a batch.
i have altered my test code according to your suggestion, to look like this:
public void testLargeBatches() {
Node node1 = new Node("node 1");
node1.setId(1L);
s.insert(node1);
clock.advanceTime(1L, TimeUnit.DAYS);
int batchSize = 4;
int daysToRun = 10;
ArrayList batch = new ArrayList(batchSize);
ArrayList nodeIds = new ArrayList();
nodeIds.add(1L);
DateTime engineTime;
long start;
long accumulated = 0;
long currentTime;
long eventTime;
long delta;
System.err.println("days: "+daysToRun+". batch: "+batchSize+".
rules: "+ruleFile);
for (int i=0; i
> You are inserting a day's worth of backup events at a time. In this loop
> the engine is forced to evaluate both rules, for an ever-increasing number
> of events. It's the second rule that requires a comparison between any two
> backup events, and this causes a quadratic increment in processing time.
>
> CEP is short for "continuous event processing", and that's what you should
> let the engine do, i.e., not only evaluate the conditions but also the
> execute the consequences. This is done by calling fireAllRules() after each
> insertion. Alternatively, consider running fireUntilHalt() in once thread
> and insert in another thread.
>
> Ideally, the test should generate events ordered by time, and the
> pseudo-clock might be advanced due to the time stamp in the generated
> events. This would give you a very close approximation to a production run.
>
> -W
>
>
> 2010/12/26 radai
>
> well, fixed now :-)
>> the benchmark (part of a junit) looks like this:
>>
>> protected void init() {
>> KnowledgeBuilderConfiguration bConf =
>> KnowledgeBuilderFactory.newKnowledgeBuilderConfiguration();
>> KnowledgeBuilder builder =
>> KnowledgeBuilderFactory.newKnowledgeBuilder(bConf);
>> builder.add(...);
>>
>> KnowledgeBaseConfiguration kbConf =
>> KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBaseConfiguration();
>> kbConf.setOption( EventProcessingOption.STREAM );
>> //todo - turn this on when
>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2845 is fixed
>> //kbConf.setOption( MultithreadEvaluationOption.YES );
>> kb = KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBase(kbConf);
>> kb.addKnowledgePackages(builder.getKnowledgePackages());
>>
>> KnowledgeSessionConfiguration sConf =
>> KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeSessionConfiguration();
>> sConf.setOption(ClockTypeOption.get("pseudo"));
>> Environment env = EnvironmentFactory.newEnvironment();
>> s = kb.newStatefulKnowledgeSession(sConf ,env);
>>
>> clock = (SessionPseudoClock) s.getSessionClock();
>>
>> backupStream = s.getWorkingMemoryEntryPoint("Backup Stream");
>> }
>>
>> followed by a test method that looks like this:
>>
>> public void testLargeBatches() {
>>
>> Node node1 = new Node("node 1");
>> node1.setId(1L);
>> s.insert(node1);
>> s.fireAllRules();
>>
>> clock.advanceTime(1L, TimeUnit.DAYS);
>> s.fireAllRules();
>>
>> int batchSize = 4;
>> int daysToRun = 1;
>> ArrayList batch = new ArrayList(batchSize);
>> ArrayList nodeIds = new ArrayList();
>> nodeIds.add(1L);
>> DateTime engineTime;
>>
>> long start;
>> long accumulated = 0;
>>
>> System.err.println("days: "+daysToRun+". batch: "+batchSize+".
>> rules: "+ruleFile);
>>
>> for (int i=0; i> engineTime = new DateTime(clock.getCurrentTime(),
>> DateTimeZone.UTC);
>> batch.clear();
>> //generate random
>> BackupGenerationUtil.fillBackupBatch(batch, nodeIds,
>> engineTime.minusHours(23).minusMinutes(59).minusSeconds(59),
>> engineTime.minusSeconds(1), batchSize);
>>
>> start = System.currentTimeMillis();
>>
>> //feed the batch in
>> for (Backup b : batch) {
>> backupStream.insert(b);
>> }
>>
>> //advance a day and run all rules
>> s.fireAllRules();
>> clock.advanceTime(1L, TimeUnit.DAYS);
>> s.fireAllRules();
>>
>> accumulated += (System.currentTimeMillis() - start);
>> }
>>
>> long averageBatchProcessingTime =
>> (long)(accumulated/(double)daysToRun);
>> double perBackupEventTime =
>> ((double)accumulated)/(batchSize*daysToRun);
>> int eventsPerSecond = (int)(1000D/perBackupEventTime);
>>
>> System.err.println("average batch processing time is
>> "+averageBatchProcessingTime+" which is "+perBackupEventTime+"/event or
>> "+eventsPerSecond+" events/second");
>> }
>>
>> running this with or without the 2nd "trimming" rules makes a huge
>> difference. on my machine i can run the non-trimming version i
Re: [rules-users] help with diagnosing CEP performance issue
You are inserting a day's worth of backup events at a time. In this loop the
engine is forced to evaluate both rules, for an ever-increasing number of
events. It's the second rule that requires a comparison between any two
backup events, and this causes a quadratic increment in processing time.
CEP is short for "continuous event processing", and that's what you should
let the engine do, i.e., not only evaluate the conditions but also the
execute the consequences. This is done by calling fireAllRules() after each
insertion. Alternatively, consider running fireUntilHalt() in once thread
and insert in another thread.
Ideally, the test should generate events ordered by time, and the
pseudo-clock might be advanced due to the time stamp in the generated
events. This would give you a very close approximation to a production run.
-W
2010/12/26 radai
> well, fixed now :-)
> the benchmark (part of a junit) looks like this:
>
> protected void init() {
> KnowledgeBuilderConfiguration bConf =
> KnowledgeBuilderFactory.newKnowledgeBuilderConfiguration();
> KnowledgeBuilder builder =
> KnowledgeBuilderFactory.newKnowledgeBuilder(bConf);
> builder.add(...);
>
> KnowledgeBaseConfiguration kbConf =
> KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBaseConfiguration();
> kbConf.setOption( EventProcessingOption.STREAM );
> //todo - turn this on when
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2845 is fixed
> //kbConf.setOption( MultithreadEvaluationOption.YES );
> kb = KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBase(kbConf);
> kb.addKnowledgePackages(builder.getKnowledgePackages());
>
> KnowledgeSessionConfiguration sConf =
> KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeSessionConfiguration();
> sConf.setOption(ClockTypeOption.get("pseudo"));
> Environment env = EnvironmentFactory.newEnvironment();
> s = kb.newStatefulKnowledgeSession(sConf ,env);
>
> clock = (SessionPseudoClock) s.getSessionClock();
>
> backupStream = s.getWorkingMemoryEntryPoint("Backup Stream");
> }
>
> followed by a test method that looks like this:
>
> public void testLargeBatches() {
>
> Node node1 = new Node("node 1");
> node1.setId(1L);
> s.insert(node1);
> s.fireAllRules();
>
> clock.advanceTime(1L, TimeUnit.DAYS);
> s.fireAllRules();
>
> int batchSize = 4;
> int daysToRun = 1;
> ArrayList batch = new ArrayList(batchSize);
> ArrayList nodeIds = new ArrayList();
> nodeIds.add(1L);
> DateTime engineTime;
>
> long start;
> long accumulated = 0;
>
> System.err.println("days: "+daysToRun+". batch: "+batchSize+".
> rules: "+ruleFile);
>
> for (int i=0; i engineTime = new DateTime(clock.getCurrentTime(),
> DateTimeZone.UTC);
> batch.clear();
> //generate random
> BackupGenerationUtil.fillBackupBatch(batch, nodeIds,
> engineTime.minusHours(23).minusMinutes(59).minusSeconds(59),
> engineTime.minusSeconds(1), batchSize);
>
> start = System.currentTimeMillis();
>
> //feed the batch in
> for (Backup b : batch) {
> backupStream.insert(b);
> }
>
> //advance a day and run all rules
> s.fireAllRules();
> clock.advanceTime(1L, TimeUnit.DAYS);
> s.fireAllRules();
>
> accumulated += (System.currentTimeMillis() - start);
> }
>
> long averageBatchProcessingTime =
> (long)(accumulated/(double)daysToRun);
> double perBackupEventTime =
> ((double)accumulated)/(batchSize*daysToRun);
> int eventsPerSecond = (int)(1000D/perBackupEventTime);
>
> System.err.println("average batch processing time is
> "+averageBatchProcessingTime+" which is "+perBackupEventTime+"/event or
> "+eventsPerSecond+" events/second");
> }
>
> running this with or without the 2nd "trimming" rules makes a huge
> difference. on my machine i can run the non-trimming version in batches of
> 300K @~2500 events/second @1GB RAM. with the trimming rule i cant get
> anywhere near that - the above value (40K) is already enough to slow it down
> to ~1800 events/second, and i dont understand whats so "heavy" about my
> attempt to save memory.
>
> any help/thoughts/clues would be most welcome.
>
>
> 2010/12/23 Mauricio Salatino
>
>> hehe yes.. the same happens to "me" :)
>>
>> 2010/12/23 Wolfgang Laun
>>
>> (OT: your nick "me" is confusing other gmail users. I see your mail as if
>>> I had sent it to myself. I was almost binning it.)
>>>
>>> The delay you see may depend on the way you run the test with 40K events.
>>> Please describe the sequence of insertions and calls to fire...(), the
>>> session setup (pseudo-clock, etc.)
>>>
>>> -W
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/12/23 me
>>>
Hi.
im trying to demo drools-fusion for a system that processes backup
events.
i have the following 2
Re: [rules-users] help with diagnosing CEP performance issue
just to be clear, the "fixed" was only referring to my nick on gmail ... ;-)
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 6:24 AM, radai wrote:
> well, fixed now :-)
> the benchmark (part of a junit) looks like this:
>
> protected void init() {
> KnowledgeBuilderConfiguration bConf =
> KnowledgeBuilderFactory.newKnowledgeBuilderConfiguration();
> KnowledgeBuilder builder =
> KnowledgeBuilderFactory.newKnowledgeBuilder(bConf);
> builder.add(...);
>
> KnowledgeBaseConfiguration kbConf =
> KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBaseConfiguration();
> kbConf.setOption( EventProcessingOption.STREAM );
> //todo - turn this on when
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2845 is fixed
> //kbConf.setOption( MultithreadEvaluationOption.YES );
> kb = KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBase(kbConf);
> kb.addKnowledgePackages(builder.getKnowledgePackages());
>
> KnowledgeSessionConfiguration sConf =
> KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeSessionConfiguration();
> sConf.setOption(ClockTypeOption.get("pseudo"));
> Environment env = EnvironmentFactory.newEnvironment();
> s = kb.newStatefulKnowledgeSession(sConf ,env);
>
> clock = (SessionPseudoClock) s.getSessionClock();
>
> backupStream = s.getWorkingMemoryEntryPoint("Backup Stream");
> }
>
> followed by a test method that looks like this:
>
> public void testLargeBatches() {
>
> Node node1 = new Node("node 1");
> node1.setId(1L);
> s.insert(node1);
> s.fireAllRules();
>
> clock.advanceTime(1L, TimeUnit.DAYS);
> s.fireAllRules();
>
> int batchSize = 4;
> int daysToRun = 1;
> ArrayList batch = new ArrayList(batchSize);
> ArrayList nodeIds = new ArrayList();
> nodeIds.add(1L);
> DateTime engineTime;
>
> long start;
> long accumulated = 0;
>
> System.err.println("days: "+daysToRun+". batch: "+batchSize+".
> rules: "+ruleFile);
>
> for (int i=0; i engineTime = new DateTime(clock.getCurrentTime(),
> DateTimeZone.UTC);
> batch.clear();
> //generate random
> BackupGenerationUtil.fillBackupBatch(batch, nodeIds,
> engineTime.minusHours(23).minusMinutes(59).minusSeconds(59),
> engineTime.minusSeconds(1), batchSize);
>
> start = System.currentTimeMillis();
>
> //feed the batch in
> for (Backup b : batch) {
> backupStream.insert(b);
> }
>
> //advance a day and run all rules
> s.fireAllRules();
> clock.advanceTime(1L, TimeUnit.DAYS);
> s.fireAllRules();
>
> accumulated += (System.currentTimeMillis() - start);
> }
>
> long averageBatchProcessingTime =
> (long)(accumulated/(double)daysToRun);
> double perBackupEventTime =
> ((double)accumulated)/(batchSize*daysToRun);
> int eventsPerSecond = (int)(1000D/perBackupEventTime);
>
> System.err.println("average batch processing time is
> "+averageBatchProcessingTime+" which is "+perBackupEventTime+"/event or
> "+eventsPerSecond+" events/second");
> }
>
> running this with or without the 2nd "trimming" rules makes a huge
> difference. on my machine i can run the non-trimming version in batches of
> 300K @~2500 events/second @1GB RAM. with the trimming rule i cant get
> anywhere near that - the above value (40K) is already enough to slow it down
> to ~1800 events/second, and i dont understand whats so "heavy" about my
> attempt to save memory.
>
> any help/thoughts/clues would be most welcome.
>
>
> 2010/12/23 Mauricio Salatino
>
> hehe yes.. the same happens to "me" :)
>>
>> 2010/12/23 Wolfgang Laun
>>
>> (OT: your nick "me" is confusing other gmail users. I see your mail as if
>>> I had sent it to myself. I was almost binning it.)
>>>
>>> The delay you see may depend on the way you run the test with 40K events.
>>> Please describe the sequence of insertions and calls to fire...(), the
>>> session setup (pseudo-clock, etc.)
>>>
>>> -W
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/12/23 me
>>>
Hi.
im trying to demo drools-fusion for a system that processes backup
events.
i have the following 2 CEP rules:
rule "Backup Not Succeeded For At Least 3 Days"
@ruleId(1)
when
Node($id : id)
not ( Backup(clientId == $id, $state: state ==
BackupStateEnum.FINISHED) over window:time( 3d ) from entry-point "Backup
Stream" )
then
//nothing for now
end
rule "Prune Previous Successful Backups"
@ruleId(2)
when
$prevBackup : Backup($id : clientId, state ==
BackupStateEnum.FINISHED) from entry-point "Backup Stream"
$newerBackup : Backup(clientId == $id, state ==
BackupStateEnum.FINISHED, this after $prevBackup) from entry-point "Backup
Stream"
then
drools.retract($prevBackup);
end
rule
Re: [rules-users] help with diagnosing CEP performance issue
well, fixed now :-)
the benchmark (part of a junit) looks like this:
protected void init() {
KnowledgeBuilderConfiguration bConf =
KnowledgeBuilderFactory.newKnowledgeBuilderConfiguration();
KnowledgeBuilder builder =
KnowledgeBuilderFactory.newKnowledgeBuilder(bConf);
builder.add(...);
KnowledgeBaseConfiguration kbConf =
KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBaseConfiguration();
kbConf.setOption( EventProcessingOption.STREAM );
//todo - turn this on when
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2845 is fixed
//kbConf.setOption( MultithreadEvaluationOption.YES );
kb = KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBase(kbConf);
kb.addKnowledgePackages(builder.getKnowledgePackages());
KnowledgeSessionConfiguration sConf =
KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeSessionConfiguration();
sConf.setOption(ClockTypeOption.get("pseudo"));
Environment env = EnvironmentFactory.newEnvironment();
s = kb.newStatefulKnowledgeSession(sConf ,env);
clock = (SessionPseudoClock) s.getSessionClock();
backupStream = s.getWorkingMemoryEntryPoint("Backup Stream");
}
followed by a test method that looks like this:
public void testLargeBatches() {
Node node1 = new Node("node 1");
node1.setId(1L);
s.insert(node1);
s.fireAllRules();
clock.advanceTime(1L, TimeUnit.DAYS);
s.fireAllRules();
int batchSize = 4;
int daysToRun = 1;
ArrayList batch = new ArrayList(batchSize);
ArrayList nodeIds = new ArrayList();
nodeIds.add(1L);
DateTime engineTime;
long start;
long accumulated = 0;
System.err.println("days: "+daysToRun+". batch: "+batchSize+".
rules: "+ruleFile);
for (int i=0; i
> hehe yes.. the same happens to "me" :)
>
> 2010/12/23 Wolfgang Laun
>
> (OT: your nick "me" is confusing other gmail users. I see your mail as if I
>> had sent it to myself. I was almost binning it.)
>>
>> The delay you see may depend on the way you run the test with 40K events.
>> Please describe the sequence of insertions and calls to fire...(), the
>> session setup (pseudo-clock, etc.)
>>
>> -W
>>
>>
>> 2010/12/23 me
>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> im trying to demo drools-fusion for a system that processes backup
>>> events.
>>> i have the following 2 CEP rules:
>>>
>>> rule "Backup Not Succeeded For At Least 3 Days"
>>> @ruleId(1)
>>> when
>>> Node($id : id)
>>> not ( Backup(clientId == $id, $state: state ==
>>> BackupStateEnum.FINISHED) over window:time( 3d ) from entry-point "Backup
>>> Stream" )
>>> then
>>> //nothing for now
>>> end
>>>
>>> rule "Prune Previous Successful Backups"
>>> @ruleId(2)
>>> when
>>> $prevBackup : Backup($id : clientId, state ==
>>> BackupStateEnum.FINISHED) from entry-point "Backup Stream"
>>> $newerBackup : Backup(clientId == $id, state ==
>>> BackupStateEnum.FINISHED, this after $prevBackup) from entry-point "Backup
>>> Stream"
>>> then
>>> drools.retract($prevBackup);
>>> end
>>>
>>> rule #2 is my attempt to cut down on memory usage. the problem is that
>>> rule #2 slows down the processing very very considerably (2 orders of
>>> magnitude slower when simulating batches of 40K events/day).
>>>
>>> what would be my next step in trying to find the reason for it? my
>>> intuition tells me that with 2 events in the system at any given time
>>> instead of 120K (single node, 40K events/day 3 day window) i should have
>>> seen either a speedup or reduced memory consumption (if not both) and yet
>>> the results im seeing are the exact opposite.
>>> is there anything im missing ? i could try adding some sort of
>>> LastSuccessfulBackup "marker" object into main memory and updating it using
>>> events from the backup stream, but then how would i express rule #1 ?
>>>
>>> any help/clues/suggestions would be greatly appreciated,
>>>
>>>radai.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> - CTO @ http://www.plugtree.com
> - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com
> - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar
>
> - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
>
> ___
> 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] help with diagnosing CEP performance issue
hehe yes.. the same happens to "me" :) 2010/12/23 Wolfgang Laun > (OT: your nick "me" is confusing other gmail users. I see your mail as if I > had sent it to myself. I was almost binning it.) > > The delay you see may depend on the way you run the test with 40K events. > Please describe the sequence of insertions and calls to fire...(), the > session setup (pseudo-clock, etc.) > > -W > > > 2010/12/23 me > >> Hi. >> >> im trying to demo drools-fusion for a system that processes backup events. >> >> i have the following 2 CEP rules: >> >> rule "Backup Not Succeeded For At Least 3 Days" >> @ruleId(1) >> when >> Node($id : id) >> not ( Backup(clientId == $id, $state: state == >> BackupStateEnum.FINISHED) over window:time( 3d ) from entry-point "Backup >> Stream" ) >> then >> //nothing for now >> end >> >> rule "Prune Previous Successful Backups" >> @ruleId(2) >> when >> $prevBackup : Backup($id : clientId, state == >> BackupStateEnum.FINISHED) from entry-point "Backup Stream" >> $newerBackup : Backup(clientId == $id, state == >> BackupStateEnum.FINISHED, this after $prevBackup) from entry-point "Backup >> Stream" >> then >> drools.retract($prevBackup); >> end >> >> rule #2 is my attempt to cut down on memory usage. the problem is that >> rule #2 slows down the processing very very considerably (2 orders of >> magnitude slower when simulating batches of 40K events/day). >> >> what would be my next step in trying to find the reason for it? my >> intuition tells me that with 2 events in the system at any given time >> instead of 120K (single node, 40K events/day 3 day window) i should have >> seen either a speedup or reduced memory consumption (if not both) and yet >> the results im seeing are the exact opposite. >> is there anything im missing ? i could try adding some sort of >> LastSuccessfulBackup "marker" object into main memory and updating it using >> events from the backup stream, but then how would i express rule #1 ? >> >> any help/clues/suggestions would be greatly appreciated, >> >>radai. >> >> ___ >> 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 > > -- - CTO @ http://www.plugtree.com - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio - ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] help with diagnosing CEP performance issue
(OT: your nick "me" is confusing other gmail users. I see your mail as if I had sent it to myself. I was almost binning it.) The delay you see may depend on the way you run the test with 40K events. Please describe the sequence of insertions and calls to fire...(), the session setup (pseudo-clock, etc.) -W 2010/12/23 me > Hi. > > im trying to demo drools-fusion for a system that processes backup events. > i have the following 2 CEP rules: > > rule "Backup Not Succeeded For At Least 3 Days" > @ruleId(1) > when > Node($id : id) > not ( Backup(clientId == $id, $state: state == > BackupStateEnum.FINISHED) over window:time( 3d ) from entry-point "Backup > Stream" ) > then > //nothing for now > end > > rule "Prune Previous Successful Backups" > @ruleId(2) > when > $prevBackup : Backup($id : clientId, state == > BackupStateEnum.FINISHED) from entry-point "Backup Stream" > $newerBackup : Backup(clientId == $id, state == > BackupStateEnum.FINISHED, this after $prevBackup) from entry-point "Backup > Stream" > then > drools.retract($prevBackup); > end > > rule #2 is my attempt to cut down on memory usage. the problem is that rule > #2 slows down the processing very very considerably (2 orders of magnitude > slower when simulating batches of 40K events/day). > > what would be my next step in trying to find the reason for it? my > intuition tells me that with 2 events in the system at any given time > instead of 120K (single node, 40K events/day 3 day window) i should have > seen either a speedup or reduced memory consumption (if not both) and yet > the results im seeing are the exact opposite. > is there anything im missing ? i could try adding some sort of > LastSuccessfulBackup "marker" object into main memory and updating it using > events from the backup stream, but then how would i express rule #1 ? > > any help/clues/suggestions would be greatly appreciated, > >radai. > > ___ > 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
[rules-users] help with diagnosing CEP performance issue
Hi. im trying to demo drools-fusion for a system that processes backup events. i have the following 2 CEP rules: rule "Backup Not Succeeded For At Least 3 Days" @ruleId(1) when Node($id : id) not ( Backup(clientId == $id, $state: state == BackupStateEnum.FINISHED) over window:time( 3d ) from entry-point "Backup Stream" ) then //nothing for now end rule "Prune Previous Successful Backups" @ruleId(2) when $prevBackup : Backup($id : clientId, state == BackupStateEnum.FINISHED) from entry-point "Backup Stream" $newerBackup : Backup(clientId == $id, state == BackupStateEnum.FINISHED, this after $prevBackup) from entry-point "Backup Stream" then drools.retract($prevBackup); end rule #2 is my attempt to cut down on memory usage. the problem is that rule #2 slows down the processing very very considerably (2 orders of magnitude slower when simulating batches of 40K events/day). what would be my next step in trying to find the reason for it? my intuition tells me that with 2 events in the system at any given time instead of 120K (single node, 40K events/day 3 day window) i should have seen either a speedup or reduced memory consumption (if not both) and yet the results im seeing are the exact opposite. is there anything im missing ? i could try adding some sort of LastSuccessfulBackup "marker" object into main memory and updating it using events from the backup stream, but then how would i express rule #1 ? any help/clues/suggestions would be greatly appreciated, radai. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
