| From: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Liming Hu <dawninghu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: request a new feature in fuzzystrmatch |
| Date: | 2013-05-17 15:23:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAOeZVifPtHw2e79n9HHwx-B_X6UTpZTsoJb1W5mEtnc6K5fOsA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Liming Hu <dawninghu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi Atri,
>
> Thanks for the quick response.
>
> levenshtein edit distance defines operations of: insertion, deletion,
> modification.
> Levenshtein-Damerau edit distance defines operations of: insertion,
> deletion, modification
> and transposition (
> it will be two operations in levenshtein edit distance:
> one deletion, and one insertion,
> ).
>
> In spelling checker/corrector, i.e.
> levenshtein('cta', 'cat') will return 2.
> but Levenshtein-Damerau('cta', 'cat') will return 1.
> if the maximum error is 1, we can not get 'cat'.
>
> In practice, Levenshtein-Damerau is more widely used than Levenshtein.
> I believe you notice "Google automated search suggestions", they use
> Levenshtein-Damerau.
>
Sounds interesting. How can we build this over our current
implementation, or do we need to build it from scratch?
Regards,
Atri
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Liming Hu | 2013-05-17 15:26:04 | Re: request a new feature in fuzzystrmatch |
| Previous Message | Liming Hu | 2013-05-17 15:23:13 | Re: request a new feature in fuzzystrmatch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Liming Hu | 2013-05-17 15:26:04 | Re: request a new feature in fuzzystrmatch |
| Previous Message | Liming Hu | 2013-05-17 15:23:13 | Re: request a new feature in fuzzystrmatch |