> On Feb 6, 2014, at 18:04, "Kevin A. McGrail" <kmcgr...@pccc.com> wrote: > >> On 2/6/2014 8:32 PM, Dave Warren wrote: >>> On 2014-02-06 17:17, John Hardin wrote: >>>> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: >>>> >>>> I've discussed it with Alex a bit but one of my next ideas for the Rules >>>> QA process is the following: >>>> >>>> - we measure and report on metrics for the rules that are promoted such as >>>> rank (existing), computational expense, time spent on rule. >>> >>> I assume meta rules would combine the expense of their components? >>> >>> Sounds interesting! >> >> How about if one or more components were called more by more than one >> meta-rule? It's perhaps not entirely fair to divide it evenly, since that >> might imply that removing the metarule would kill off that CPU usage. > Without triple checking the code, my 99.9% belief is Rules are cached. > Calling them multiple times does not trigger a re-check.
I believe so too, which is why this matters. If they were re-evaluated, you could just sum up a meta rule and not care. Doing just a sum of a meta rule is misleading because the savings from disabling a meta rule may only be a fraction if all of the underlying component rules are being called anyway.
