Re: request a new feature in fuzzystrmatch
От | Atri Sharma |
---|---|
Тема | Re: request a new feature in fuzzystrmatch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAOeZVievvrdJ2PM4Uf1vP9eViKcoZkT48B=VqVAC=t5UoN4_3Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: request a new feature in fuzzystrmatch (Liming Hu <dawninghu@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: request a new feature in fuzzystrmatch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Liming Hu <dawninghu@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/17/2013 8:23 AM, Atri Sharma wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Liming Hu <dawninghu@gmail.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 > > I know how to write the code, but just need approval of accepting into the > new version. Well, acceptance depends largely on the implementation and actual benefit statistics. I would suggest implementing a basic version and then demonstrating its potential benefits here. It will lead to clearer ideas for us and lead to improvements in the implementation. Regards, Atri -- Regards, Atri l'apprenant
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: