On 18/06/14 10:05, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
I'm not proposing an immutable cutoff.  Something that scales with the
string length might be a good idea, or we could make it a multiple of
the minimum observed distance, or probably there are a dozen other things
we could do.  I'm just saying that if we have an alternative at distance
3, and another one at distance 4, it's not clear to me that we should
assume that the first one is certainly what the user had in mind.
Especially not if all the other alternatives are distance 10 or more.
The patch just looks for the match with the lowest distance, passing
the lowest observed distance so far as a "max" to the distance
calculation function. That could have some value in certain cases.
People have already raised general concerns about added cycles and/or
clutter.

How about a list of miss spellings and the likely targets.
  (grop, grap, ...) ==> (grep, grape, grope...)
type of thing? Possibly with some kind of adaptive learning algorithm.

I suspect that while this might be a useful research project, it is out of scope for the current discussion!


Cheers,
Gavin


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to