I would like to create a website where we can post and search chord progressions. However, I am troubled by the fact that chord progressions are not likely to be indexed in a normal RDB because they are fuzzy searches, and the searches are likely to be heavy.
I don't think Elastic Search or Algolia will be particularly effective in the case of chord progressions.
How should I implement this? For example, we are assuming that there are about 1,000 characters in a chord progression string such as "C-F-G-C-F-G-C" per song, and that there are tens of thousands of records of this data.
I imagine that there are several tens of thousands of records of such data, and then search for "C-F" or "F-G-C".
Related
First of all, I want to acknowledge that this is perhaps a very sophisticated problem; however, I have not been able to find a definitive answer for it online so I'm looking for suggestions.
Suppose I want to collect a list containing over hundred thousand strings, values of these strings are sentences that a user has typed. The values are added to the list as soon as a user types a new message. For example:
["Hello world!", "Good morning, my name is John", "Good morning, everyone"]
But I also want to have a timeout for each string so if they are not repeated within 5 min, they should be removed, so I change it to following format:
[{message:"Hello world!", timeout: NodeJS.Timeout, count: 1}, {message:"Good morning, my name is John", timeout: NodeJS.Timeout, count: 1}, {message:"Good morning, everyone", timeout: NodeJS.Timeout, count: 1}]
Now suppose a user types the following message:
Good morning, everyBODY
I want to compare this string to all the messages in list and if one is 70% or more similar, update the count of that message, otherwise insert it as a new message. For this message for example, the application should update the count for Good morning, everyone to be equal to 2.
Since users can type a lot of messages in a short amount of time, the algorithm must also support fast insertion, searching, and deleting after the timeout.
What is the best way to implement this? or are there any libraries to help me with this?
NOTE: The strings do not need to be in an array, any data structure would work.
The main purpose of this algorithm is to detect similar messages when the count reaches a predefined value. For example warning: Over 5 users typed messages similar to "Hello everybody" within 5 minutes
I have looked at B-Trees, Nearest Neighbor, etc but I can't figure out what would be the best solution.
Update:
I plan on using Levenshtein distance for string similarity, however the main problem is how to apply that to a list of strings in most time efficient way, without having to check every single string every time a new message is added.
Levenshtein distance
Unlike the other answer I think Levenshtein distance is perfectly capable of dealing with spelling mistakes. Indeed, Levenshtein and LevXenshtein only have Levenshtein distance 1, and thus can be concluded to likely be the same message.
However, if you want to use this distance, you will have to compute the distance between the new message and every message stored, every time a new message comes in. There is likely no way around this.
Unfortunately there is no real useful pre-processing you can do for this.
Other possibilities
If you can find a way to map every message to a fixed-size vector, you can use essentially any nearest neighbor search technique. I suggest doing so.
This leaves us with two problems to solve. Generating the fixed-length vector, and doing the search.
Fixed-size vector representation
There are multiple ways of doing this, all with their own set of drawbacks. I'll specifically mention two, but it will depend on your architecture and data which method is best for you.
First, you could go the machine-learning way. You could map every word to a pre-trained vector with fastText, average the words in the message, and use that as your vector. The drawbacks of this method are that it will ignore word order, and it will work less well if the words used tend to be very informal. If your messages have their own culture to them (such as for example Twitch chat) you would have to retrain these vectors instead of using pre-trained ones.
Alternatively, you could use the structure of the text directly, and make an occurrence vector of bigrams. That is, jot down how often every 2-character combination occurs in a message. This is fairly robust, but has the drawback that the vectors will become relatively large.
Regardless, these are just two options, and it's impossible to tell what method is ideal for you. Unless of course someone has a brilliant idea.
Nearest neighbor search
Given that we have fixed length vectors, we can now do nearest neighbor search. As you've probably found, there are once again many different methods for this, all with their own drawbacks. Exhausting, I know.
I'll choose to discuss three categories.
Approximate search: This method may seem a little silly, but it could be what you want. Specifically, Locality-sensitive hashing is essentially just making some hashing function where "similar" vectors are likely to end up in the same bucket. You could then do anything you want, such as Levenshtein, with all of the other members of the bucket, because there should not be too many of them. The advantage of such an approximate algorithm is that it can be fast, and with some smart hashing you don't even need fixed-length vectors. A downside, of course, is that it is not guaranteed to work.
Exact search: We can also choose to instead solve the problem of Fixed-radius near neighbors. That is, find the points within some distance of the target point. You could do this by mapping vectors to integers (if they aren't already) and simply checking every lattice point within the distance you want to search. The primary drawback here is that the search time grows very fast not with the number of points, but with the number of dimensions of the vector. This method would necessitate small vectors.
Fancy datastructures: This seems to me most likely to be the right solution. Unfortunately you have a lot of letter-trees. You mention B-trees, but there's also R-trees, R+-Trees, R*-Trees, X-Trees, and that's just the direct descendants of the R-tree. With the risk of missing the trees for the forest, I'd suggest taking a look at the k-d tree. It can do nearest neighbor search in logarithmic time, as well as insertion and deletion.
You want to covert all of the words to their Soundex value.
Then you need a database for the soundex values that ranks the importance of the word in the sentence, e.g. the should probably get 0. The more information the word carries the higher its value.
Then sort the words in the sentence into a list of integers.
Use the list of integers as the key to find similar sentences.
Since the key is a list of integers a Rose tree should work as data structure.
While some may suggest measuring using something like Levenshtein distance that presupposes that the sentences have no spelling mistakes or such. You need something that is flexible enough to deal with human error.
I would suggest you to use Algolia. Which has their own ranking algorithm rates each matching record on several criteria (such as the number of typos or the geo-distance), to which they individually assign a integer value score.
I would totally take a loook on it, since they have Search-as-you-type and different Ranking algorithm criterias.
https://blog.algolia.com/search-ranking-algorithm-unveiled/
I think Search Engine like SOLR or Elastic Search are best fit for your problem.
You have to create single collection in which you can store data as you have mention in the question after that you just have to add data to solr and search it in the solr search with your time limit.
Let's say I have a database of books that includes their titles. For a given listing from eBay or Craigslist or some other such site, I want to compare its title string to all of the book titles in my database to try to find a match.
It's unlikely there will ever be exact string equality as users on those sites like to include things like "perfect condition" and "fast shipping" to their listing titles to attract buyers.
What algorithm(s) should I use to do this type of correlation? I'm aware of n-grams and Levenshtein distance, but I don't know which would do the most accurate job.
For the various applicable algorithms, how does their computational performance compare? Would it make sense to use multiple algorithms and average their results to balance their strengths and weaknesses? Would it be possible to set a minimum level of confidence? I'd rather have no match than a very poor quality match.
For the task at hand, I think you'd get best results with some pre-processing: remove common "null" phrases (those you don't want to see), such that you have a smaller title that is likely to have the actual title as a major part.
The next step depends on your DB size and request overhead. If those are inexpensive, then pull a list of titles from your DB, and see which exists in the eBay text (a single command in many languages). If that works for you, then even that pre-processing is likely unnecessary overhead.
If the full DB listing is expensive, but the DB is indexed well, then try grabbing likely n-grams (say, 2-3 words) from the eBay text, and searching for them in the DB. You should get relatively few return values, which you can then try in toto against the full eBay text for a match.
I'm working on a project which searches through a database, then sorts the search results by relevance, according to a string the user inputs. I think my current search is fairly decent, but the comparator I wrote to sort the results by relevance is giving me funny results. I don’t know what to consider relevant. I know this is a big branch of information retrieval, but I have no idea where to start finding examples of searches which sort objects by relevance and would appreciate any feedback.
To give a little more background about my specific issue, the user will input a string in a website database, which stores objects (items in the store) with various fields, such as a minor and major classification (for example, an XBox 360 game might be stored with major=video_games and minor=xbox360 fields along with its specific name). The four main fields that I think should be considered in the search are the specific name, major, minor, and genre of the type of object, if that helps.
In case you don't wanna use lucene/Solr, you can always use distance metrics to find the similarity between query and the rows retrieved from database. Once you get the score you can sort them and they will be considered as sorted by relevance.
This is what exactly happens behind the scene of lucene. You can use simple similarity metrics like manhattan distance, distance of points in n-dimensional space etc. Look for lucene scoring formula for more insight.
Consider the following search results:
Google for 'David' - 591 millions hits in 0.28 sec
Google for 'John' - 785 millions hits in 0.18 sec
OK. Pages are indexed, it only needs to look up the count and the first few items in the index table, so speed is understandable.
Now consider the following search with AND operation:
Google for 'David John' ('David' AND 'John') - 173 millions hits in 0.25 sec
This makes me ticked ;) How on earth can search engines get the result of AND operations on gigantic datasets so fast? I see the following two ways to conduct the task and both are terrible:
You conduct the search of 'David'. Take the gigantic temp table and conduct a search of 'John' on it. HOWEVER, the temp table is not indexed by 'John', so brute force search is needed. That just won't compute within 0.25 sec no matter what HW you have.
Indexing by all possible word
combinations like 'David John'. Then
we face a combinatorial explosion on the number of keys and
not even Google has the storage
capacity to handle that.
And you can AND together as many search phrases as you want and you still get answers under a 0.5 sec! How?
What Markus wrote about Google processing the query on many machines in parallel is correct.
In addition, there are information retrieval algorithms that make this job a little bit easier. The classic way to do it is to build an inverted index which consists of postings lists - a list for each term of all the documents that contain that term, in order.
When a query with two terms is searched, conceptually, you would take the postings lists for each of the two terms ('david' and 'john'), and walk along them, looking for documents that are in both lists. If both lists are ordered the same way, this can be done in O(N). Granted, N is still huge, which is why this will be done on hundreds of machines in parallel.
Also, there may be additional tricks. For example, if the highest-ranked documents were placed higher on the lists, then maybe the algorithm could decide that it found the 10 best results without walking the entire lists. It would then guess at the remaining number of results (based on the size of the two lists).
I think you're approaching the problem from the wrong angle.
Google doesn't have a tables/indices on a single machine. Instead they partition their dataset heavily across their servers. Reports indicate that as many as 1000 physical machines are involved in every single query!
With that amount of computing power it's "simply" (used highly ironically) a matter of ensuring that every machine completes their work in fractions of a second.
Reading about Google technology and infrastructure is very inspiring and highly educational. I'd recommend reading up on BigTable, MapReduce and the Google File System.
Google have an archive of their publications available with lots of juicy information about their techologies. This thread on metafilter also provides some insight to the enourmous amount of hardware needed to run a search engine.
I don't know how google does it, but I can tell you how I did it when a client needed something similar:
It starts with an inverted index, as described by Avi. That's just a table listing, for every word in every document, the document id, the word, and a score for the word's relevance in that document. (Another approach is to index each appearance of the word individually along with its position, but that wasn't required in this case.)
From there, it's even simpler than Avi's description - there's no need to do a separate search for each term. Standard database summary operations can easily do that in a single pass:
SELECT document_id, sum(score) total_score, count(score) matches FROM rev_index
WHERE word IN ('david', 'john') GROUP BY document_id HAVING matches = 2
ORDER BY total_score DESC
This will return the IDs of all documents which have scores for both 'David' and 'John' (i.e., both words appear), ordered by some approximation of relevance and will take about the same time to execute regardless of how many or how few terms you're looking for, since IN performance is not affected much by the size of the target set and it's using a simple count to determine whether all terms were matched or not.
Note that this simplistic method just adds the 'David' score and the 'John' score together to determine overall relevance; it doesn't take the order/proximity/etc. of the names into account. Once again, I'm sure that google does factor that into their scores, but my client didn't need it.
I did something similar to this years ago on a 16 bit machine. The dataset had an upper limit of around 110,000 records (it was a cemetery, so finite limit on burials) so I setup a series of bitmaps each containing 128K bits.
The search for "david" resulting in me setting the relevant bit in one of the bitmaps to signify that the record had the word "david" in it. Did the same for 'john' in a second bitmap.
Then all you need to do is a binary 'and' of the two bitmaps, and the resulting bitmap tells you which record numbers had both 'david' and 'john' in them. Quick scan of the resulting bitmap gives you back the list of records that match both terms.
This technique wouldn't work for google though, so consider this my $0.02 worth.
I've seen a few sites that list related searches when you perform a search, namely they suggest other search queries you may be interested in.
I'm wondering the best way to model this in a medium-sized site (not enough traffic to rely on visitor stats to infer relationships). My initial thought is to store the top 10 results for each unique query, then when a new search is performed to find all the historical searches that match some amount of the top 10 results but ideally not matching all of them (matching all of them might suggest an equivalent search and hence not that useful as a suggestion).
I imagine that some people have done this functionality before and may be able to provide some ideas of different ways to do this. I'm not necessarily looking for one winning idea since the solution will no doubt vary substantially depending on the size and nature of the site.
have you considered a matrix of with keywords on 1 axis vs. documents on another axis. once you find the set of vetors representing the keywords, find sets of keyword(s) found in your initial result set and then find a way to rank the other keywords by how many documents they reference or how many times they interset the intial result set.
I've tried a number of different approaches to this, with various degrees of success. In the end, I think the best approach is highly dependent on the domain/topics being searched, and how the users form queries.
Your thought about storing previous searches seems reasonable to me. I'd be curious to see how it works in practice (I mean that in the most sincere way -- there are many nuances that can cause these techniques to fail in the "real world", particularly when data is sparse).
Here are some techniques I've used in the past, and seen in the literature:
Thesaurus based approaches: Index into a thesaurus for each term that the user has used, and then use some heuristic to filter the synonyms to show the user as possible search terms.
Stem and search on that: Stem the search terms (eg: with the Porter Stemming Algorithm and then use the stemmed terms instead of the initially provided queries, and given the user the option of searching for exactly the terms they specified (or do the opposite, search the exact terms first, and use stemming to find the terms that stem to the same root. This second approach obviously takes some pre-processing of a known dictionary, or you can collect terms as your indexing term finds them.)
Chaining: Parse the results found by the user's query and extract key terms from the top N results (KEA is one library/algorithm that you can look at for keyword extraction techniques.)