laune wrote > > You realize that the modify negating part of the condition must result in > an immediate retraction of the logical insertion?
Yes. I did realize that the logical insert would retrigger. sorry, I had started with logical inserts without that clause. I only added the negation portion when I wrote the manual insert test (i didn't include the manual retract logic in my post either). Finally I changed to modify only approach for a huge speedup. (Modify was initially the trivial case I posted but later I used wrapper objects and was able to mirror the complexity of the other approaches without a comparable slowdown. I used the trivial modify example since the final approach required a drastically different datamodel and made the post rather long) laune wrote > During the runs: were there any other rules besides the one you have > shown, > especially rules with patterns using AnomalyFact or DataPoint? My original rule file had many more rules but the numbers collected were for performance testing with only a single rule once I identified that even the simplest case was not scaling properly. So yes the rule file was only a single rule (plus an additional retraction rule for the non-logical insert test) the rule while useless on its own proved sufficient to show that scaling to millions of datapoints was impossible using logical insertions or even manual insert/retract. Luckily I was able to restructure my data to use a modify based processing model but was dismayed that logical insert suggestion that was documented as preferable scaled so poorly. It made me suspect that I was misusing some part of the system. But the case is simple to test. If performance is linear than doubling the number of objects should result in double the time. Anything worse is not scalable for an extremely busy systems. (thousands of points per second) My post was largely 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-fact-insertion-tp3727727p3732884.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
