I haven't tried running the rules, but the second format doesn't mean the same thing as the first format.
normally, if I start a rule with a NOT CE, I have it match against a literal value. Having a NOT CE that declares a binding isn't really valid, if I'm not mistaken. peter On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Hal Hildebrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Which is more efficient: > > (DOMAIN::planned-process (host-id ?host) (id ?pid) (plan ?plan)) > (not (DOMAIN::host-association (host ?host))) > (not (DOMAIN::decommission-process (process ?pid))) > or > > (not (DOMAIN::host-association (host ?host))) > (not (DOMAIN::decommission-process (process ?pid))) > (DOMAIN::planned-process (host-id ?host) (id ?pid) (plan ?plan)) > Assuming that there are a large number of DOMAIN::planned-process facts in > the system. Are they essentially equivalent? > Also, in general, is it more efficient to put the NOTs before or after in > rule forms such as the above? -------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]' in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
