--As of February 6, 2014 5:32:47 PM -0800, Dave Warren is alleged to have
said:
On 2014-02-06 17:17, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I've discussed it with Alex a bit but one of my next ideas for the
Rules QA process is the following:
- we measure and report on metrics for the rules that are promoted
such as rank (existing), computational expense, time spent on rule.
I assume meta rules would combine the expense of their components?
Sounds interesting!
How about if one or more components were called more by more than one
meta-rule? It's perhaps not entirely fair to divide it evenly, since that
might imply that removing the metarule would kill off that CPU usage.
Perhaps documenting the cost of the individual components, summing them,
with a flag to indicate that some or all of the components are shared?
That sounds overly complex, but it at least gives the enterprising rule
author or server administrator the ability to understand what is
happening.
--As for the rest, it is mine.
I would probably give the meta-rule no cost - add up the cost of the
components if you want it. (With the understanding that all no-cost rules
are meta rules.)
Another option would be to give meta rules *negative* cost - the number is
the size of the cost of the sub-rules, the negative indicates that it is a
meta rule.
Just thoughts on options.
Daniel T. Staal
---------------------------------------------------------------
This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---------------------------------------------------------------
