> > > > I ran it with this data overnight (it took 5 hours): > > > > > > flights( > > [flight( 1,crew:6,stewards:3,stewardesses:3,french:1,spanish:1,german:1), > > flight( 2,crew:6,stewards:3,stewardesses:3,french:1,spanish:1,german:1), > > flight( 3,crew:6,stewards:3,stewardesses:3,french:1,spanish:1,german:1), > > flight( 4,crew:7,stewards:3,stewardesses:3,french:1,spanish:1,german:1), > > flight( 5,crew:7,stewards:3,stewardesses:3,french:1,spanish:1,german:1), > > flight( 6,crew:7,stewards:3,stewardesses:3,french:1,spanish:1,german:1) > > > > ] > > ). > > > > And no solution respected the two_days_off clauses. > > > > If the problem is my understanding- can someone explain briefly how this constraint can be decided as optional? > > > > Can you show the incorrect solutions? I tried running your data with the > crew example, and it has not yet produced a solution after nearly a day... > I'll try to get round to running this again, sure, but the answer I got was simply the same crew repeatedly scheduled (per solution)- which is what I meant by no solution respected the two_days_off clause. The poor devils didn't even get one day off. As I said, mine took 5 hours, but I'm using a pretty new, quad core machine so I don't know if that expalins the difference we are seeing in run-to-completion-time. Chris. _________________________________________________________________ Got a cool Hotmail story? Tell us now http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/Received on Sun Feb 07 2010 - 23:54:09 CET
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Apr 16 2024 - 09:13:20 CEST