Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!unido!uklirb!shell
From: seim@tub.uucp (Kai Seim)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.shells
Subject: Re: Expert System Shells Speed Comparison
Message-ID: <7462@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>
Date: 9 Jan 91 16:42:24 GMT
References: <7422@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de>
Sender: shell@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de
Organization: Technische Universitaet Berlin, Germany.
Lines: 47
Approved: shell@informatik.uni-kl.de
Posted-Date: Wed Jan 16 08:04:17 GMT 1991

In article <7422@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> srt@aerospace.aero.org (Scott TCB Turner) writes:


>I've been studying the performance of various expert system shells
>lately, and I thought the results interesting enough to post.  For
>each shell I wrote the simplest possible rule that would fire
>repeatedly and timed the number of firings per minute.  Obviously,
>this is an overly simplistic test.  It would be better to time some
>kind of "realistic" set of rules, but I haven't the time or energy to
>do that.  This test does, I think, give some ideas about the basic
>speed of the rule interpreter.

I think, this kind of measure isn't a very realistic one. I have only some
experience with a hybrid expert system shell, named babylon (which is implemeted
by the GMD and VW Gedas, a german CS-Foundation and the software-house of VW). 
And I think, it's not enough, to fire a rule, to measure the performance of
a ruleinterpreter.

This shell uses frame-types as predicates, slots with frametypes as predicates,
freetext (self defined) predicates and so on. My problem with your kind of 
measure is: These different kinds of predicates will execute with different 
speed (i presume). How can you measure these thing? CLIPS, as far as i read
or heard, for example, is a very primitive rule-based shell. I presume, that
it needs more rules to get the same results as a hybrid shell?

I would like to discuss these things.
>
>Shell			Approx. Rules/Minute
>G2				1700
>Nexpert				4000
>ART-IM				5500
>CLIPS			       49000
>
>CLIPS is the obvious big winner.  This despite that fact that
>incrementing a counter in CLIPS requires an assert and retract from
>the database.
>
So I can't agree with your interpretation of your measures.
>						-- Scott Turner

With regards

Kai Seim

Kai Seim			email:	seim@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de
Taborstr. 14a			phone:	+ 49 30 6125451
D 1000 Berlin 36		organisation: University of Technology Berlin