;
>}
>
>@Test public void testModify20k() {
>allowList.add("ModifyPerformance");
>testPerf(20000);
> }
>
> private void testPerf(final Integer AMT_DATA) {
>rulesSession.insert(AMT_DATA)
ame());
}
});
System.out.println(allowList.get(allowList.size()-1) +" with
"+AMT_DATA+"
in " + (System.currentTimeMillis()-start));
}
}
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.
of time involved required by
the rule processing.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Performance-scaling-with-fact-insertion-tp3727727p3733352.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com
to determine if others had also reproduced simular scaling
> issues. If so then we should modify the documentation to be more
> appropriate in it's suggestions.
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Performance-scaling-with-
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Performance-scaling-with-fact-insertion-tp3727727p3732884.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
rules-users mailing list
rules
You realize that the modify negating part of the condition must result in
an immediate retraction of the logical insertion?
During the runs: were there any other rules besides the one you have shown,
especially rules with patterns using AnomalyFact or DataPoint?
AnomalyType =/= AnomalyEnum
-W
O
I was running some performance analysis on my rules so I could tune in hopes of
scaling up from hundreds of thousands of datapoints to millions of entries and
noticed some alarming performance scaling issues when rules are firing and
inserting dependent objects. At first I thought it was one of
