Long time lurker, first time poster. I'm hoping to get some advice from the brilliant minds in this community. In the project I'm working in, the goal is to look at a user-provided string and determine if the content of that string contains any (one or many) matches to a list of match criteria. For example:
User-provided string: "I like thing a and thing b"
Match List:
Match Criteria
Match Type
Category
Foo
Exact (Case Insensitive)
Bar
Thing a
Contains (Case Insensitive)
Things
Thing b
Contains (Case Insensitive)
Stuff
In this case, it would return the following matches:
Thing a > Things
Thing b > Stuff
As of now, my approach is to iterate through the match criteria list and check each list item against the user-supplied string using the Match Type specified (Exact, Contains, Regular Expression), returning a list of the matches and then doing some stuff with that list. This approach works, even when matching ~100 rules and handling a 200-record batch, but it seems obvious that the performance will be pretty terrible if a large number of rules is introduced.
Is there a better way to do this that would be supported in Apex called by a trigger? I would love to learn a more sophisticated approach if there is one.
Thanks in advance!
What do you need it for. Is it a pure apex exercise or is it "close" to certain standard sObjects? There are lots of built-in features around "fuzzy matching".
In no specific order...
Have you looked into "all things Einstein", from categorising leads to predicting how likely this opportunity is to close. Might not be direction you expected to take but who knows
Obviously SOSL comes to mind, like what powers the global search. It automatically does some substitutions for you like Mike -> Michael
Matching rules, duplicate rules. You'd have a limit of say 5 active rules but you could hook to them up from Apex, including creative abuse of the system. "Dear salesforce, let's pretend I'm making such and such Opportunity, can you find me similar Opportunities?" (plot twist- you're not making an Oppty at all, you're creating account of some venture capitalist looking for investments that match his preferences). Give matching rules a go, if not for everything then at least for more creative fuzzy matching. You really don't want to implement soundex, levenshtein etc manually...
tags? There's somewhat forgotten feature from SF classic, it creates bunch of tables (AccountTag, ContactTag). This plus SOSL could be close to what you need.
Additionally if you need this for anything close to Knowledge Base:
Data Categories come to mind
KB supports synonyms, letting you define your (not very intuitive) "thing b => stuff" mapping.
and it should survive translations
Related
I wish to create a fuzzy search algorithm.
However, upon hours of research I am really struggling.
I want to create an algorithm that performs a fuzzy search on a list of names of schools.
This is what I have looked at so far:
Most of my research keep pointing to "string metrics" on Google and Stackoverflow such as:
Levenshtein distance
Damerau-Levenshtein distance
Needleman–Wunsch algorithm
However this just gives a score of how similar 2 strings are. The only way I can think of implementing it as a search algorithm is to perform a linear search and executing the string metric algorithm for each string and returning the strings with scores above a certain threshold. (Originally I had my strings stored in a trie tree, but this obviously won't help me here!)
Although this is not such a bad idea for small lists, it would be problematic for lists with lets say a 100,000 names, and the user performed many queries.
Another algorithm I looked at is the Spell-checker method, where you just do a search for all potential misspellings. However this also is highly inefficient as it requires more than 75,000 words for a word of length 7 and error count of just 2.
What I need?
Can someone please suggest me a good efficient fuzzy search algorithm. with:
Name of the algorithm
How it works or a link to how it works
Pro's and cons and when it's best used (optional)
I understand that all algorithms will have their pros and cons and there is no best algorithm.
Considering that you're trying to do a fuzzy search on a list of school names, I don't think you want to go for traditional string similarity like Levenshtein distance. My assumption is that you're taking a user's input (either keyboard input or spoken over the phone), and you want to quickly find the matching school.
Distance metrics tell you how similar two strings are based on substitutions, deletions, and insertions. But those algorithms don't really tell you anything about how similar the strings are as words in a human language.
Consider, for example, the words "smith," "smythe," and "smote". I can go from "smythe" to "smith" in two steps:
smythe -> smithe -> smith
And from "smote" to "smith" in two steps:
smote -> smite -> smith
So the two have the same distance as strings, but as words, they're significantly different. If somebody told you (spoken language) that he was looking for "Symthe College," you'd almost certainly say, "Oh, I think you mean Smith." But if somebody said "Smote College," you wouldn't have any idea what he was talking about.
What you need is a phonetic algorithm like Soundex or Metaphone. Basically, those algorithms break a word down into phonemes and create a representation of how the word is pronounced in spoken language. You can then compare the result against a known list of words to find a match.
Such a system would be much faster than using a distance metric. Consider that with a distance metric, you need to compare the user's input with every word in your list to obtain the distance. That is computationally expensive and the results, as I demonstrated with "smith" and "smote" can be laughably bad.
Using a phonetic algorithm, you create the phoneme representation of each of your known words and place it in a dictionary (a hash map or possibly a trie). That's a one-time startup cost. Then, whenever the user inputs a search term, you create the phoneme representation of his input and look it up in your dictionary. That is a lot faster and produces much better results.
Consider also that when people misspell proper names, they almost always get the first letter right, and more often than not pronouncing the misspelling sounds like the actual word they were trying to spell. If that's the case, then the phonetic algorithms are definitely the way to go.
I wrote an article about how I implemented a fuzzy search:
https://medium.com/#Srekel/implementing-a-fuzzy-search-algorithm-for-the-debuginator-cacc349e6c55
The implementation is in Github and is in the public domain, so feel free to have a look.
https://github.com/Srekel/the-debuginator/blob/master/the_debuginator.h#L1856
The basics of it is: Split all strings you'll be searching for into parts. So if you have paths, then "C:\documents\lol.txt" is maybe "C", "documents", "lol", "txt".
Ensure you lowercase these strings to ensure that you it's case insensitive. (Maybe only do it if the search string is all-lowercase).
Then match your search string against this. In my case I want to match it regardless of order, so "loldoc" would still match the above path even though "lol" comes after "doc".
The matching needs to have some scoring to be good. The most important part I think is consecutive matching, so the more characters directly after one another that match, the better. So "doc" is better than "dcm".
Then you'll likely want to give extra score for a match that's at the start of a part. So you get more points for "doc" than "ocu".
In my case I also give more points for matching the end of a part.
And finally, you may want to consider giving extra points for matching the last part(s). This makes it so that matching the file name/ending scores higher than the folders leading up to it.
You're confusing fuzzy search algorithms with implementation: a fuzzy search of a word may return 400 results of all the words that have Levenshtein distance of, say, 2. But, to the user you have to display only the top 5-10.
Implementation-wise, you'll pre-process all the words in the dictionary and save the results into a DB. The popular words (and their fuzzy-likes) will be saved into cache-layer - so you won't have to hit the DB for every request.
You may add an AI layer that will add the most common spelling mistakes and add them to the DB. And etc.
A simple algorithm for "a kind of fuzzy search"
To be honest, in some cases, fuzzy search is mostly useless and I think that a simpler algorithm can improve the search result while providing the feeling that we are still performing a fuzzy search.
Here is my use case: Filtering down a list of countries using "Fuzzy search".
The list I was working with had two countries starting with Z: Zambia and Zimbabwe.
I was using Fusejs.
In this case, when entering the needle "zam", the result set was having 19 matches and the most relevant one for any human (Zambia) at the bottom of the list. And most of the other countries in the result did not even have the letter z in their name.
This was for a mobile app where you can pick a country from a list. It was supposed to be much like when you have to pick a contact from the phone's contacts. You can filter the contact list by entering some term in the search box.
IMHO, this kind of limited content to search from should not be treated in a way that will have people asking "what the heck?!?".
One might suggest to sort by most relevant match. But that's out of the question in this case because the user will then always have to visually find the "Item of Interest" in the reduced list. Keep in mind that this is supposed to be a filtering tool, not a search engine "à la Google". So the result should be sorted in a predictable way. And before filtering, the sorting was alphabetical. So the filtered list should just be an alphabetically sorted subset of the original list.
So I came up with the following algorithm ...
Grab the needle ... in this case: zam
Insert the .* pattern at the beginning and end of the needle
Insert the .* pattern between each letter of the needle
Perform a Regex search in the haystack using the new needle which is now .*z.*a.*m.*
In this case, the user will have a much expected result by finding everything that has somehow the letters z, a and m appearing in this order. All the letters in the needles will be present in the matches in the same order.
This will also match country names like Mozambique ... which is perfect.
I just think that sometimes, we should not try to kill a fly with a bazooka.
Fuzzy Sort is a javascript library is helpful to perform string matching from a large collection of data.
The following code will helpful to use fuzzy sort in react.js.
Install fuzzy sort through npm,
npm install fuzzysort
Full demo code in react.js
import React from 'react';
import './App.css';
import data from './testdata';
const fuzzysort = require('fuzzysort');
class App extends React.Component {
constructor(props){
super(props)
this.state = {
keyword: '',
results: [],
}
console.log("data: ", data["steam_games"]);
}
search(keyword, category) {
return fuzzysort.go(keyword, data[category]);
}
render(){
return (
<div className="App">
<input type="text" onChange={(e)=> this.setState({keyword: e.target.value})}
value={this.state.keyword}
/>
<button onClick={()=>this.setState({results: this.search(this.state.keyword, "steam_games")})}>Search</button>
{this.state.results !== null && this.state.results.length > 0 ?
<h3>Results:</h3> : null
}
<ul>
{this.state.results.map((item, index) =>{
return(
<li key={index}>{item.score} : {item.target}</li>
)
})
}
</ul>
</div>
);
}
}
export default App;
For more refer FuzzySort
The problem can be broken down into two parts:
1) Choosing the correct string metric.
2) Coming up with a fast implementation of the same.
Choosing the correct metric: This part is largely dependent on your use case. However, I would suggest using a combination of a distance-based score and a phonetic-based encoding for greater accuracy i.e. initially computing a score based on the Levenshtein distance and later using Metaphone or Double Metaphone to complement the results.
Again, you should base your decision on your use case. If you can do with using just the Metaphone or Double Metaphone algorithms, then you needn't worry much about the computational cost.
Implementation: One way to cap down the computational cost is to cluster your data into several small groups based on your use case and load them into a dictionary.
For example, If you can assume that your user enters the first letter of the name correctly, you can store the names based on this invariant in a dictionary.
So, if the user enters the name "National School" you need to compute the fuzzy matching score only for school names starting with the letter "N"
I am looking for a algorithm for string processing, I have searched for it but couldn't find a algorithm that meets my requirements. I will explain what the algorithm should do with an example.
There are two sets of word sets defined as shown below:
**Main_Words**: swimming, driving, playing
**Words_in_front**: I am, I enjoy, I love, I am going to go
The program will search through a huge set of words as soon it finds a word that is defined in Main_Words it will check the words in front of that Word to see if it has any matching words defined in Words_in_front.
i.e If the program encounters the word "Swimming" it has to check if the words in front of the word "Swimming" are one of these: I am, I enjoy, I love, I am going to go.
Are there any algorithms that can do this?
A straightforward way to do this would be to just do a linear scan through the text, always keeping track of the last N+1 words (or characters) you see, where N is the number of words (or characters) in the longest phrase contained in your words_in_front collection. When you have a "main word", you can just check whether the sequence of N words/characters before it ends with any of the prefixes you have.
This would be a bit faster if you transformed your words_in_front set into a nicer data structure, such as a hashmap (perhaps keyed by last letter in the phrase..) or a prefix/suffix tree of some sort, so you wouldn't have to do an .endsWith over every single member of the set of prefixes each time you have a matching "main word." As was stated in another answer, there is much room for optimization and a few other possible implementations, but there's a start.
Create a map/dictionary/hash/associative array (whatever is defined in your language) with key in Main_Words and Words_in_front are the linked list attached to the entry pointed by the key. Whenever you encounter a word matching a key, go to the table and see if in the attached list there are words that match what you have in front.
That's the basic idea, it can be optimized for both speed and space.
You should be able to build a regular expression along these lines:
I (am|enjoy|love|am going to go) (swimming|driving|playing)
Here's a text with ambiguous words:
"A man saw an elephant."
Each word has attributes: lemma, part of speech, and various grammatical attributes depending on its part of speech.
For "saw" it is like:
{lemma: see, pos: verb, tense: past}, {lemma: saw, pos: noun, number: singular}
All this attributes come from the 3rd party tools, Lucene itself is not involved in the word disambiguation.
I want to perform a query like "pos=verb & number=singular" and NOT to get "saw" in the result.
I thought of encoding distinct grammatical annotations into strings like "l:see;pos:verb;t:past|l:saw;pos:noun;n:sg" and searching for regexp "pos\:verb[^\|]+n\:sg", but I definitely can't afford regexp queries due to performance issues.
Maybe some hacks with posting list payloads can be applied?
UPD: A draft of my solution
Here are the specifics of my project: there is a fixed maximum of parses a word can have (say, 8).
So, I thought of inserting the parse number in each attribute's payload and use this payload at the posting lists intersectiion stage.
E.g., we have a posting list for 'pos = Verb' like ...|...|1.1234|...|..., and a posting list for 'number = Singular': ...|...|2.1234|...|...
While processing a query like 'pos = Verb AND number = singular' at all stages of posting list processing the 'x.1234' entries would be accepted until the intersection stage where they would be rejected because of non-corresponding parse numbers.
I think this is a pretty compact solution, but how hard would be incorporating it into Lucene?
So... the cheater way of doing this is (indeed) to control how you build the lucene index.
When constructing the lucene index, modify each word before Lucene indexes it so that it includes all the necessary attributes of the word. If you index things this way, you must do a lookup in the same way.
One way:
This means for each type of query you do, you must also build an index in the same way.
Example:
saw becomes noun-saw -- index it as that.
saw also becomes noun-past-see -- index it as that.
saw also becomes noun-past-singular-see -- index it as that.
The other way:
If you want attribute based lookup in a single index, you'd probably have to do something like permutation completion on the word 'saw' so that instead of noun-saw, you'd have all possible permutations of the attributes necessary in a big logic statement.
Not sure if this is a good answer, but that's all I could think of.
I am aware that languages like Prolog allow you to write things like the following:
mortal(X) :- man(X). % All men are mortal
man(socrates). % Socrates is a man
?- mortal(socrates). % Is Socrates mortal?
yes
What I want is something like this, but backwards. Suppose I have this:
mortal(X) :- man(X).
man(socrates).
man(plato).
man(aristotle).
I then ask it to give me a random X for which mortal(X) is true (thus it should give me one of 'socrates', 'plato', or 'aristotle' according to some random seed).
My questions are:
Does this sort of reverse inference have a name?
Are there any languages or libraries that support it?
EDIT
As somebody below pointed out, you can simply ask mortal(X) and it will return all X, from which you can simply pick a random one from the list. What if, however, that list would be very large, perhaps in the billions? Obviously in that case it wouldn't do to generate every possible result before picking one.
To see how this would be a practical problem, imagine a simple grammar that generated a random sentence of the form "adjective1 noun1 adverb transitive_verb adjective2 noun2". If the lists of adjectives, nouns, verbs, etc. are very large, you can see how the combinatorial explosion is a problem. If each list had 1000 words, you'd have 1000^6 possible sentences.
Instead of the deep-first search of Prolog, a randomized deep-first search strategy could be easyly implemented. All that is required is to randomize the program flow at choice points so that every time a disjunction is reached a random pole on the search tree (= prolog program) is selected instead of the first.
Though, note that this approach does not guarantees that all the solutions will be equally probable. To guarantee that, it is required to known in advance how many solutions will be generated by every pole to weight the randomization accordingly.
I've never used Prolog or anything similar, but judging by what Wikipedia says on the subject, asking
?- mortal(X).
should list everything for which mortal is true. After that, just pick one of the results.
So to answer your questions,
I'd go with "a query with a variable in it"
From what I can tell, Prolog itself should support it quite fine.
I dont think that you can calculate the nth solution directly but you can calculate the n first solutions (n randomly picked) and pick the last. Of course this would be problematic if n=10^(big_number)...
You could also do something like
mortal(ID,X) :- man(ID,X).
man(X):- random(1,4,ID), man(ID,X).
man(1,socrates).
man(2,plato).
man(3,aristotle).
but the problem is that if not every man was mortal, for example if only 1 out of 1000000 was mortal you would have to search a lot. It would be like searching for solutions for an equation by trying random numbers till you find one.
You could develop some sort of heuristic to find a solution close to the number but that may affect (negatively) the randomness.
I suspect that there is no way to do it more efficiently: you either have to calculate the set of solutions and pick one or pick one member of the superset of all solutions till you find one solution. But don't take my word for it xd
My company maintains a domain-specific language that syntactically resembles the Excel formula language. We're considering adding new builtins to the language. One way to do this is to identify verbose commands that are repeatedly used in our codebase. For example, if we see people always write the same 100-character command to trim whitespace from the beginning and end of a string, that suggests we should add a trim function.
Seeing a list of frequent substrings in the codebase would be a good start (though sometimes the frequently used commands differ by a few characters because of different variable names used).
I know there are well-established algorithms for doing this, but first I want to see if I can avoid reinventing the wheel. For example, I know this concept is the basis of many compression algorithms, so is there a compression module that lets me retrieve the dictionary of frequent substrings? Any other ideas would be appreciated.
The string matching is just the low hanging fruit, the obvious cases. The harder cases are where you're doing similar things but in different order. For example suppose you have:
X+Y
Y+X
Your string matching approach won't realize that those are effectively the same. If you want to go a bit deeper I think you need to parse the formulas into an AST and actually compare the AST's. If you did that you could see that the tree's are actually the same since the binary operator '+' is commutative.
You could also apply reduction rules so you could evaluate complex functions into simpler ones, for example:
(X * A) + ( X * B)
X * ( A + B )
Those are also the same! String matching won't help you there.
Parse into AST
Reduce and Optimize the functions
Compare the resulting AST to other ASTs
If you find a match then replace them with a call to a shared function.
I would think you could use an existing full-text indexer like Lucene, and implement your own Analyzer and Tokenizer that is specific to your formula language.
You then would be able to run queries, and be able to see the most used formulas, which ones appear next to each other, etc.
Here's a quick article to get you started:
Lucene Analyzer, Tokenizer and TokenFilter
You might want to look into tag-cloud generators. I couldn't find any source in the minute that I spent looking, but here's an online one:
http://tagcloud.oclc.org/tagcloud/TagCloudDemo which probably won't work since it uses spaces as delimiters.