In the change and swap move selector, I would like to only consider moves that involve entities in conflict as they are more likely to improve the heuristic score.
How should this be done? What classes and interfaces do I have to reuse/extend? I looked at ScoreDirector and PhaseLifecycleListener.
A MoveFilter might do that (if it's not in phase or solver cached as it changes ever step). See the course scheduling example and docs for how to use a filter.
I wouldn't recommend it though, as you still want to move non-conflicting entities at times. You might just want to focus more on those conflicting lectures. So I would keep a vanilla move selector in the mix.
The move filter isn't perfect either - the Guided Local Search feature (not yet available) is a better way to deal with this.
However, given the other question about the model and similar cases I 've seen, I 'd say moves are not your problem. A better model will make all these kinds of move tweaking obsolete.
Related
I'm building a student schedule generator and I need a way of producing more than one solution. Is there some way to save off feasible scores or scores of Xhard/Ysoft?
I need to be able to output more than one potential schedule, that way the student will have a choice for one schedule over the other if for whatever reason they don't want the "best" schedule (maybe they don't like one of the professors, maybe they don't want an 8am class, whatever)
My original idea was to save off all feasible solutions using the bestSolutionChanged event listener. The problem with this, is that once it finds a 0hard/0soft score, it ignores all scores after that, including scores that are equal.
Ideally I'd like to save off all scores of 0hard/-3soft or better, but just being able to save any feasible scores or force optaplanner to look for a new best score would be useful as well.
This is not a solution, but an analysis of the problem:
Hacking the BestSolutionRecaller is obviously not just a big pain, it's also behaviour we don't want to encourage as it makes upgrading to newer version an even bigger pain. So don't expect us to solve this by adding an easy way to configure that in the solver config any time soon. That being said, a solution for this common problem is clearly needed.
When a new best solution is found, it is planning cloned (see docs for definition) from the working solution (the internal solution in OptaPlanner). This allow us to remember that new best solution as the working solution solution changes. That also means the BestSolutionChangedEvents gets a plannng clone and can safely ship it to another thread, for example to marshal it to a client (presuming any ProblemFactChanges you create do copies instead of alterations), without being corrupted by the solver thread that modifies the working solution.
New best solution imply that workingScore > bestScore. The moment it instead does workingScore >= bestScore, we need far more planning clones (which are a bit CPU expensive), but we could then just send out BestSolutionChangedEvents for that too, if and only if a flag is enabled of course, because most users (unlike yourself) don't want this behaviour.
One proposal is to create a separate BestSolutionChangedOrSameEvent, next to the BestSolutionChangedEvent. This might not be ideal, because we need to be able to detect whether or not someone needs those extra planning clones.
Another proposal is to just have a flag in the <solver> config that switches from > to >= behavior for BestSolutionChangedEvent.
Please create a jira (see "get help" on webpage) and link it it here, or create a support ticket (also see "get help" on webpage).
I'm currently using OptaPlanner 6.2.0 but can update if it can help.
I need to keep some data of chaining between variables and entities outside the planner, as well as some precalculated data and I need a way to update it after each move but before the rules are fired. I use that data when check the rules. I know it's a hacky way but there are complex rules which need separate data storing, can't think of the way to avoid it. Also this way the Planner has shown good performance.
So the thing is I need a way to trigger some code on each move which would update that separately stored data with the changes from current move, before the rules are applied for this move and decision about how good is the move is taken (because the rules address that data), so in fact before the score for this move gets recalculated. On Local Search phase it's pretty simple because all of my moves are custom, so I can do it inside of doMove. But I really need to do the same thing in CH phase.
I'm aware that we can't change move type to custom in CH phase. I also find it very difficult to implement a full analogue of CH phase in CustomPhaseCommand for this little change. Removing CH phase and replacing it with simple custom phase reduces the quality of allocation for this specific task significantly even thought I had an example where it worked better without CH at all. I've also tried adding PhaseLifecycleListener to my Solver but it only listens to steps and phases, not to separate moves. The closest effort so far was implementing a VariableListener which indeed happens to fire beforeVariableChanged, afterVariableChanged at each move, even on CH phase. But in beforeVariableChanged I can only see the old variable, not the new one (I need both to update my data), and afterVariableChanged seems to fire AFTER the rules where fired and checked so it's useless to update the data in this method (by the way how do shadow variables get updated then on CH phase usually? I thought it should fire after, update the shadow variables there and then recheck the rules with updated shadow variables?)
I also tried to look at the chaining but I'm not sure it can fully cover my complex case with storing data separately and using it in rules...
So is there a way to correctly update my structure at each CH move? Or is there a simple way to handle the complex data dependencies other than moving it to separate structure outside of Planner?
Thanks in advance!
What is the best practice for having many different menus/screens/forms in a visual basic program? Would it be to just make a new form for each menu or screen that I want? Or are there other better options?
I am not trying to make this overly complicated, I have a group project to work on and we all have different skill levels. That said it has peaked my curiosity so I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask before I got started.
I can see this question being closed pretty quickly as being too open ended so allow me to get in my key gripe on this before that happens... no .Visible property for TabControl pages? Seriously, Microsoft??
Which brings me to the key point. If the forms are in some way related but not necessarily identical I prefer to use a single form with different tabs, despite that glaring shortcoming in the control. (Which you don't have to look far to find workarounds for on SO, but a workaround is still a workaround.) Dynamically manipulating controls at run time is another side of this coin, though one that I tend to use more rarely... but that's just a personal thing.
In a recent application, for instance, I had lists of several types of objects. They were related, but performed quite different functions and the user wouldn't really need to look at more than one list at once. As a result I used one form with a tab for each object list to keep the users' display less cluttered.
Similarly when doing a GL app recently I had the journal header and journal line entries (which go to different tables in the back-end database) in separate parts of the one form. On the other hand asset creation was sufficiently different that I created a different form, despite the creation process sharing some of the underlying data. (That is, journal line data.)
I don't believe in the concept of "best practice" because what's a good practice in one situation may be a very bad one in another. However the "rules of thumb" that I use are:
- Keep the number of forms to a minimum to keep overhead low and reduce maintenance BUT
- If there is no logical "tie" between two functions, don't be afraid to make a new form because trying to maintain one form which performs 7 different roles is a guaranteed path to madness and frustration, especially if you break something inadvertently.
Yes, the two rules conflict, but in a way I see this aspect of design as being akin to database normalisation; there's a sweet spot between over-normalising (a separate form for each and every display) and under-normalising (trying to shoe-horn too many unrelated functions into one form). At the very least the rules always give me pause to think "do I need this form, or does it relate to something that I've already done?"
And the third rule of thumb is, obviously... always look at it from the point of view of your user. Are they going to feel like you're bouncing them around too much? Do all of the forms share a look and feel and, more importantly, control layout so that they always know where to find something?
All of these things will vary from app to app, and there's never one size that will fit all IMHO.
In my case, when I am dealing with multiple forms, I use MDI Parent Form to avoid multiple items in the windows task bar.
Another unusual solution is to set each forms ShowInTaskbar property to false.
We've hooked up the ISaveOrUpdateEventListener event and hoped we could tie it to a progress bar update for each node being visited during the save traversal of a pretty big model, BUT the event only fires once when the save operations starts (only on the node on which the Save( ) was inititated and not on any subnodes).
Are there any other events that are more appropriate to listen to for this?
We've also tried breaking up the save operation (of a hierarchical model) by doing the traversal ourselves, but that seems to degrade the performance even further.
Perhaps we're trying to solve a problem for which FNH wasn't aimed to be used. We're new to it.
We've also set up an alternative solution using SqlBulkCopy, as recommended elsewhere.
We've seen the comments that FNH is primarily supposed for smaller transactions (OLTP) and not the type of exhaustive model we're bound to by our problem (signal processing of huge data volumes).
Background:
We're trying to use Fluent NHibernate on a larger database project with data gathered from fairly complex real time analysis (high frequency, multiple input signals, long experiment times etc). In a prototype we've built we see pretty scary wait times for the moment, and need to hook in some sort of reliable progress indicator.
Yes, now confirmed - as mentioned in my comment above. One (possible) solution to this is to simply turn of Cascades and do the model traversal manually and do explicit Save( ) calls.
This works, although it's not as neat as just handling an event. Still, given the genuin design of NHibernate, I bet there's certainly an event somewhere that could be intercepted - the question is just under what name. ... I bet someone on here knows more.
Also to improve performance we used a Stateless Session, experiemented with differnet batch size, and periodically/explicitly call Flush() and Clear(). See articles below for further details:
http://davybrion.com/blog/2008/10/bulk-data-operations-with-nhibernates-stateless-sessions/
http://ideas-net.blogspot.com/2009/03/nhibernate-update-performance-issue.html
Hope this helps.
What is the best way to implement a constructor for a record? It seems like a function should be able to return a record object in the instantiation of the record in some later model higher up the tree, but I can't get that to work. For now I just use a bunch of parameters at the top of the record that populate the variables stored in the record, but it seems like that will only work in simple cases.
Can anyone shed a little light? Perhaps I shouldn't be using a record but a model. Also does anyone know how the PDE functionality is coming? The book only says that it is coming, but I have seen some other things around.
I don't seem to have the clout to add tags (which makes sense, since my "reputation" is lower than yours) so sorry about that. I thought I had actually added one at one point, but perhaps I am mistaken.
I think you need to be clear what you mean by constructor since it has a very specific meaning in Modelica. If I understand your question correctly, it sounds like what you want to do is create an instance of a record that has some fields that are specified in the constructor arguments and from those arguments a bunch of other fields in the record are computed. Is that correct?
If so, there is a mechanism to do this. You mention "the book" but it isn't clear which one you mean. If it is mine, it definitely has no mention of these so called "record constructors" because it is too old. I do not know if Peter Fritzson's book mentions them either. However, they do exist and are documented in Section 12.6 of the Modelica 3.2 specification.
As for PDEs, there has been work into this kind of thing but nothing has really been done within the design group on this topic. I would add that if you want to solve either elliptical or parabolic PDEs on regular grids, this isn't too hard even with the current language. The only real drawback is that most tools probably don't handle sparsity very efficiently. Irregular grids would also be possible, but then you get into complicated basis functions. Finally, hyperbolic PDEs are, in my opinion, quite tricky (in any environment) due to the implicit physical constraints between time and space which are difficult to express (i.e. the CFL condition).
I hope that answers your questions so far.
I can only comment on your question regarding the book of Peter Fritzson. He confirmed that he's working on an update and he hopes to get it ready 'in the course of 2011'.
Original post here:
http://openmodelica.org/index.php/forum/topic?id=50
And thanks for initiating the modelica tag, I might be useful in the near future for me too... :-)
regards,
Roel