[rules-users] Updating an existing fact w/o using fact handle

2008-05-30 Thread Fenderbosch, Eric
Is it required to use WorkingMemory.update to update an existing fact? I thought if assert behavior was set to equality and you implemented the equals method properly, then you could simply use WorkingMemory.insert to overwrite a fact in working memory with a new version. If this isn't the case, t

RE: [rules-users] Updating an existing fact w/o using fact handle

2008-06-02 Thread Fenderbosch, Eric
g memory if you still have the original non-modified object, or if behavior is equals based, using an equals object. [] Edson 2008/5/30 Fenderbosch, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Is it required to use WorkingMemory.update to update an existing fact? I thought if assert be

[rules-users] QueryResult.getFactHandles bug?

2008-06-09 Thread Fenderbosch, Eric
I didn't find a JIRA for this and I'm pretty sure my test is valid. QueryResult.getFactHandles() seems to be only returning [fid:-1:X:null] I'm using 4.0.7. Here's my test case: public void testQueryResults() throws Exception { StatefulSession workingMemory = DroolsUtil.getWorkingMemory(

RE: [rules-users] QueryResult.getFactHandles bug?

2008-06-16 Thread Fenderbosch, Eric
Any feedback on this? Just curious, we've worked around it, but I'd like to know if my assumption was wrong or if this is an actual problem. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fenderbosch, Eric Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:39 AM

RE: [rules-users] QueryResult.getFactHandles bug?

2008-06-26 Thread Fenderbosch, Eric
Looks like there's a JIRA for this now. Some feedback would have been nice, however. http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-1649 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fenderbosch, Eric Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:00 AM To: Rules

RE: [rules-users] Drools 4 poor performance scaling?

2008-06-30 Thread Fenderbosch, Eric
We are having a similar problem, although our fact count is much higher. Performance seems pretty good and consistent until about 400k facts, then performance degrades significantly. Part of the degradation is from bigger and more frequent GCs, but not all of it. Time to load first 100k facts: ~1

RE: [rules-users] Drools 4 poor performance scaling?

2008-06-30 Thread Fenderbosch, Eric
t: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:39 PM To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Drools 4 poor performance scaling? Fenderbosch, Eric wrote: > We are having a similar problem, although our fact count is much higher. > Performance seems pretty good and consistent until about 400k facts, > the

RE: [rules-users] Drools 4 poor performance scaling?

2008-07-09 Thread Fenderbosch, Eric
ooping going on with accumulation on the fly, at least with our facts and rules. I'll put an entry on the wiki as well. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fenderbosch, Eric Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:46 AM To: Rules Users List Subject: R

[rules-users] Design Question (hashCode/equals/fact maintenance)

2008-07-15 Thread Fenderbosch, Eric
I'm just looking for a bit of verification that this is a reasonable solution. This just feels like a hack and there's probably a better way that I'm just not seeing. Alternate ideas are welcome and appreciated. Thanks in advance. The objective is to find the best workers for a job: Jobs have a

RE: [rules-users] Design Question (hashCode/equals/fact maintenance)

2008-07-17 Thread Fenderbosch, Eric
I just realized I could use the "from" CE to avoid this entire mess. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fenderbosch, Eric Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:38 AM To: rules-users@lists.jboss.org Subject: [rules-users] Design Question

RE: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier

2008-08-04 Thread Fenderbosch, Eric
How is your rule base configured, with identity or equality assert behavior? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 9:59 AM To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existentia