And, I hope, it doesn't matter in which order the Events A with id x are
matched with Events B with the same id.
The idea of my approach is to make the Events A, B, C not directly visible
to the rule ABC but through a "filter" fact, one per type (A, B. C) and per
id.
Here is the abstract base cl
Hello again!
Thanks for the heads up, Wolfgang.
Basically, what I try to create is some sort of batch window, which is
not really implemented into Drools Fusion if I remember correctly.
It doesn't HAVE to be A, B, C in that particular order which I specified
in my last post, but the rul
Do you mean that insert ("send") Y times A inserts Y times Aevent with the
very same id?!
If so, you will have to reconsider your approach because you are creating
the worst possible scenario for the Rete algorithm, i.e., O(n^3) cartesian
tuples for your activations.
There are strategies for coun
Hello again.
Thanks for your test Wolfgang. When I do it like you did, I get approx.
the same results. But you misunderstood my scenario. I don't want to
send ABC x times. Here's what I meant in pseudocode.
for ( i = 0; i < X; i++)
Send Y times A
Send Y times B
What and how are you timing?
Executing exactly this rule on three event types with just an int id,
running with
long t0 = System.currentTimeMillis();
int count = 50;
for( int i = 1; i < count; i++ ){
session.insert( new EventA( i ) );
session.insert( new Even
Hello everyone.
I've got a question regarding the performance of Drools in STREAM mode.
It seems to me, that either Drools is not very fast here, or the problem
is with the rule itself.
This is the rule.
rule "ABC"
no-loop
when
$a : A
