I sent Mitchell's request to James Taylor (VP at FIC) for the
"official" answer from FIC. It's below.
SDG
jco
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Taylor, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: November 17, 2006 1:42:35 PM CST
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "James C. Owen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FW: JESS: Compiled Sequential rule evaluation
Mitchell
James asked me to answer this one, as I know a little about how
Blaze Advisor does this.
Blaze Advisor 6.1, for both .NET and Java, has two high performance
modes:
- Rete III for high-performance inferencing or forward-
chaining
- Compiled sequential for high performance sequential
execution (developer orders rules within rulesets)
So it is not really true that compiled sequential is a performance
improvement over Rete - Rete III is the execution mode that offers
better inferencing performance (relative to the original Rete).
Compiled sequential mode takes the rules, executes them
sequentially and compiles them to Java or .NET byte code “under the
covers”. You call the rules engine the same way in each case but
the rules are executed differently. When you call the complied
sequential version you don’t change the call (from the main
application) as the compilation is done by the engine. Relative to
other sequential execution there is no loss from using compiled
sequential. Relative to Rete III you lose inferencing.
Hope that helps
James Taylor
Vice President , Enterprise Decision Management
Fair Isaac Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blogs: http://www.edmblog.com and http://www.ebizQ.net/blogs/
decision_management
Subscribe to the EDM blog with RSS or by email.
Despite not being sent from my Blackberry, this email may
nevertheless be terse and contain spelling and grammatical errors.
