Thank you for all the tips. In the mean time I was able to locate the source of serious performance "killer". These 3 rules:
http://nopaste.info/3f89c43eee_nl.html I tried to reorganize and re-optimize them at least 10 times to no avail. I'd appreciate, if anyone could suggest me how to change them to get the performance up. Until now I have tried: - reducing variable bindings (e.g. resource == $resource to resource == $maxLoad.resource) - moving accumulate from constraint rules to "insert momentary load" - joining sum for TUs and Picks in one accumulate - and number of other less useful changes still, if I add these rules the calculate count goes down from approx 5300 to 2000 per second which is more than a half. Thanks and kind regards, Reinis On 04/06/2012 01:50 PM, Geoffrey De Smet wrote: > I just realized that the graph only prints out values (the soft score) > of the hard score = 0. > Since you don't reach feasibility early on, the graph will be zero. > Try to tmp hack it to get the graph by disabling soft constraints and > putting the hard constraints values in the soft score. > > With kind regards, > Geoffrey De Smet > > > Op 06-04-12 13:46, Geoffrey De Smet schreef: >> 32 hours, that is very long, especially if you're talking about >> feasibility. >> Feasibility much be attained within seconds or maybe 2 minutes. >> >> So either your problem is very, very constrained (unlikely) >> or there is much room for optimization. >> >> Run the Benchmarker and enable the statistic BEST_SOLUTION_CHANGED. >> Verify that you have a good graph, and not a bad graph. See this issue >> to see the difference: >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3451 >> >> >> Op 06-04-12 13:33, dro...@orbit-x.de schreef: >>> Thank you, Geoffrey! >>> This is the answer I was hoping for and it confirms my >>> understanding of this problem. >>> Indeed it looks like it will be a standard implementation (since it >>> is (A) and (C)). >>> The reason I was willing to ask the community is that current >>> (non-optimizied prototype solution) takes approx. 32 hours to >>> complete. But I am pretty sure that optimized move factory, rule >>> definitions and engine configuration will move the completion time >>> down to expected 6 hours. >>> -----Original-Nachricht----- >>>> Von: "Geoffrey De Smet"<ge0ffrey.s...@gmail.com> >>>> An: rules-users@lists.jboss.org >>>> Datum: 05-04-2012 11:34 >>>> Betreff: Re: [rules-users] [Drools Planner] Proof-of-Concept >>>> Stock-planning System >>>> >>>> Op 03-04-12 23:10, Reinis schreef: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I want to ask you, guys, if you could guess if it is possible or >>>>> probable to build such a System with Drools Planner: >>>>> >>>>> The system shall plan the best time where the transport unit (TU) >>>>> has to >>>>> be input into stock system to reach set delivery deadlines, >>>>> utilization >>>>> of resources and load balancing of bottle necks (all expressed as >>>>> rules). >>>>> >>>>> Most of things (resource capacity, route within the stock system, >>>>> etc.) >>>>> are given and constant facts. Actually there is only one planning >>>>> variable - time interval of a transport unit characterizing retention >>>>> period within a given Resource. Like this: >>>>> >>>>> TU#1 is in Resource #A from 11:00 till 11:30<- the optimal interval >>>>> has >>>>> to be planned >>>> Is the value range something like this: >>>> (A) >>>> - 10:00 till 10:30 >>>> - 10:30 till 11:00 >>>> - 11:00 till 11:30 >>>> - 11:30 till 12:00 >>>> Or like this? >>>> (B) >>>> - 11:00 till 11:15 >>>> - 11:01 till 11:16 >>>> - 11:02 till 11:17 >>>> - 11:03 till 11:18 >>>> ... >>>> From reading further, I presume (A). >>>> >>>>> TU#1 is in Resource #B from 11:45 till 12:00<- the optimal interval >>>>> has >>>>> to be planned >>>>> >>>>> TU#1 is in Resource #C from 12:30 till 13:00<- the optimal interval >>>>> has >>>>> to be planned >>>>> >>>>> I have following problem size and constraints: >>>>> - TUs per day: 160'000 >>>>> - Amount of resources a TU travel through: 3 >>>> Do the TU need to go through it's 3 resources in a specific order? >>>> (C) No >>>> (D) Yes >>>> I presume it can not go through 2 resources at the same time. >>>>> - Average smallest time interval: 15 Min >>>>> - Planning period: 09:00 - 16:00 = 8 hours = 32 intervals >>>>> - Initial planning window: 4-6 hours >>>>> - continuous planning multiple batch execution time during the day >>>>> after >>>>> addition and/or retraction of number of TUs: 20 minutes >>>> (E) This is repeated planning (see documentation manual if you haven't >>>> already). >>>>> So the problem size would be(?): >>>>> (TUs * resources) ^ intervals = (160'000 * 3) ^ 32 = 6.305500958×10¹⁸¹ >>>> That's not a big search space. In some examples I 've seen 10^6800. >>>> Of course, the search space isn't the only metric to take into account >>>> (but I haven't found a good way to measure the other metrics, >>>> such as how-constrained-is-the-problem, how-big-is-the-snowball-effect, >>>> ...). >>>>> I know there is no one answer to this question. I would like only >>>>> to get >>>>> your feeling on this problem. Would you take on solving this sort of >>>>> problem with drools planner? >>>> Definitely :) >>>> If it's (A) and (C), it should be an easy, standard implementation. >>>> If it's (B) and (D), then it becomes interesting :) >>>> >>>> The only part I expect some rough edges is (E). >>>> I suspect you'll be asking for build-in support for "planning entity >>>> locking" to do your continuous planning easily. >>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3359 >>>> It's a PITA to do that yourself for now. >>>>> thanks and br >>>>> Reinis >>>> -- >>>> With kind regards, >>>> Geoffrey De Smet >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rules-users mailing list >>> rules-users@lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
