Node:CHR Programming Hints, Next:, Previous:CHR Debugging, Up:CHR

Programming Hints

This section gives you some programming hints for CHR. For maximum efficiency of your constraint handler, see also the previous subsections on declarations and options.

Constraint handling rules for a given constraint system can often be derived from its definition in formalisms such as inference rules, rewrite rules, sequents, formulas expressing axioms and theorems. CHR can also be found by first considering special cases of each constraint and then looking at interactions of pairs of constraints sharing a variable. Cases that do not occur in the application can be ignored.

It is important to find the right granularity of the constraints. Assume one wants to express that n variables are different from each other. It is more efficient to have a single constraint all_different(List_of_n_Vars) than n*n inequality constraints between each pair of different variables. However, the extreme case of having a single constraint modeling the whole constraint store will usually be inefficient.

Starting from an executable specification, the rules can then be refined and adapted to the specifics of the application. Efficiency can be improved by weakening the guards to perform simplification as early as needed and by strengthening the guards to do the just right amount of propagation. Propagation rules can be expensive, because no constraints are removed.

The more heads a rule has, the more expensive it is. Rules with several heads are more efficient, if the heads of the rule share a variable (which is usually the case). Then the search for a partner constraint has to consider less candidates. In the current implementation, constraints are indexed by their functors, so that the search is only performed among the constraints containing the shared variable. Moreover, two rules with identical (or sufficiently similar) heads can be merged into one rule so that the search for a partner constraint is only performed once instead of twice.

As guards are tried frequently, they should be simple tests not involving side-effects. Head matching is more efficient than explicitly checking equalities in the ask-part of the guard. In the tell part of a guard, it should be made sure that variables from the head are never touched (e.g. by using nonvar or ground if necessary). For efficiency and clarity reasons, one should also avoid using constraints in guards. Besides conjunctions, disjunctions are allowed in the guard, but they should be used with care. The use of other control built-in predicates in the guard is discouraged. Negation and if-then-else in the ask part of a guard can give wrong results, since e.g. failure of the negated goal may be due to touching its variables.

Several handlers can be used simultaneously if they do not share constraints with the same name. The implementation will not work correctly if the same constraint is defined in rules of different handlers that have been compiled separately. In such a case, the handlers must be merged by hand. This means that the source code has to be edited so that the rules for the shared constraint are together (in one module). Changes may be necessary (like strengthening guards) to avoid divergence or loops in the computation.