On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think we would be well-advised not to start inventing our own > approximate matching algorithm. Peter's suggestion boils down to a > guess that the default cost parameters for Levenshtein suck, and your > suggestion boils down to a guess that we can fix the problems with > Peter's suggestion by bolting another heuristic on top of it - and > possibly running Levenshtein twice with different sets of cost > parameters. Ugh.
I agree. While I am perfectly comfortable with the fact that we are guessing here, my guesses are based on what I observed to work well with real schemas, and simulated errors that I thought were representative of human error. Obviously it's possible that another scheme will do better sometimes, including for example a scheme that picks a match entirely at random. But on average, I think that what I have here will do better than anything else proposed so far. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
