Edson Tirelli wrote, On 2006-11-10 12:37 AM:
Hey Geoffrey,
You guys are doing a great job testing things. Thanks.
The correct syntax would be like that:
query multipleMatchesPerTeamPerDay
$team : Team()
Match( $id : id, homeTeam == $team, $day : day ) ||
Match( $id : id,
What are you trying to achieve when you say your task
is 'log processing'
Will
ALL Log entries(objects) be of interestAssuming NOT -
you can (maybe) write some Rules which filter your input so that ONLY those Log
entries you need to process are committed to the working
memory
(you will
As far as I know, the current forward chaining implementation needs to
keep all facts into the RAM memory, so you can't hold 1 TB facts in
2-4GB RAM memory...
You could try streaming it into some sort of rules-based filter
configuration to avoid getting to much into the working memory and then
That is really a real constraint today.
We are using drools to do a sort of processing where we do have to assert
something around 2MM facts and process around 40 rules.
The facts are very similar to LOG4J records, and when we are close to 1MM
facts asserted into working memory, we just blow up
If memory consuption is an issue, consider using one of the backward
chaining RE around (Mandarax is one of them). Then have an huge
repository to handle the data. The problem of such an engine is it will
be able to pull data to answer questions, but not to react to knew
data assertions -altough I
Many thanks for your advise. Indeed, my jre was laking those jar archives. :)All the best, Oanagabriel quennesson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are probably missing required jars in your classpath. check the README_DEPENDENCIES.txt file in the lib directory of you drools distribution - the error
Well, Unfortunately I have toi keep ALL facts in memory (At
least for now...)
Good to know about "from" feature. It will save a lot of
assertions.
Anyway, I think bringing this situation (Huge amount
assertions) to discussion is important once we can always find ways to improve
drools and
In 3.2 (trunk) we have added what are known as connective constraints which will do what you want (yes they are different from conditional elements in behaviour).But not yet, in 3.0 can you do that.
On 11/10/06, John Cocktolstoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi guys,I got the same errors but thought it
