Related
I have a huge database with keywords such as html, html5, xhtml, and so on.
The user can search for rooms and as of now it is merely just implemented as
[...] WHERE name LIKE '%keyword%' LIMIT 20;
This is a simple solution to start with, but it is not fault-tolerant. And users make a lot of faults. To enhance this, I would like to introduce a "loose search", meaning that if "html" returns no or only few (less than, say, 10) matches it adds "html" and similar to the list.
The real question now is: How do I do that?
Does this 'loose searching' has a technical term?
This is definitely part of text retrieval and is also called fuzzy matching or approximate string matching. For instance, go to Google, type "MSYQL" and it will recommend "MYSQL" instead.
Here is a typical approach. Start with a list of all valid keywords. Yes, that is the place to begin. In many text applications, this would be called a lexicon.
The look for your search term(s) in the list of valid keywords. If you do not find any, then use something called "Levenshtein distance" (described here) to find the closest matches. Then use these in your search. If you search for "Levenshtein distance mysql", you will find implementations of the algorithm here.
If you have just a few known misspellings, then you can also solve the problem with a thesaurus. This replaces one search term with other terms that might match.
Are there any open source or commercial tools available that allow for text fragment indexing of database contents and can be queried from Java?
Background of the question is a large MySQL database table with several hundred thousand records, containing several VARCHAR columns. In these columns people would like to search for fragments of the contents, so a fulltext index (which is based on word boundaries) would not help.
EDIT: [Added to make clear why these first suggestions would not solve the problem:]
This is why MySQL's built in fulltext index will not do the job, and neither will Lucene or Sphinx, all of which were suggested in the answers. I already looked at both those, but as far as I can tell, these are based on indexing words, excluding stop words and doing all sorts of sensible things for a real fulltext search. However this is not suitable, because I might be looking for a search term like "oison" which must match "Roisonic Street" as well as "Poison-Ivy". The key difference here is that the search term is just a fragment of the column content, that need not be delimited by any special characters or white space.
EDIT2: [Added some more background info:]
The requested feature that is to be implemented based on this is a very loose search for item descriptions in a merchandise management system. Users often do not know the correct item number, but only part of the name of the item. Unfortunately the quality of these descriptions is rather low, they come from a legacy system and cannot be changed easily. If for example people were searching for a sledge hammer they would enter "sledge". With a word/token based index this would not find matches that are stored as "sledgehammer", but only those listen "sledge hammer". There are all kinds of weird variances that need to be covered, making a token based approach impractical.
Currently the only thing we can do is a LIKE '%searchterm%' query, effectively disabling any index use and requiring lots of resources and time.
Ideally any such tool would create an index that allowed me to get results for suchlike queries very quickly, so that I could implement a spotlight-like search, only retrieving the "real" data from the MySQL table via the primary key when a user picks a result record.
If possible the index should be updatable (without needing a full rebuild), because data might change and should be available for search immediately by other clients.
I would be glad to get recommendations and/or experience reports.
EDIT3: Commercial solution found that "just works"
Even though I got a lot of good answers for this question, I wanted to note here, that in the end we went with a commercial product called "QuickFind", made and sold by a German company named "HMB Datentechnik". Please note that I am not affiliated with them in any way, because it might appear like that when I go on and describe what their product can do. Unfortunately their website looks rather bad and is German only, but the product itself is really great. I currently have a trial version from them - you will have to contact them, no downloads - and I am extremely impressed.
As there is no comprehensive documentation available online, I will try and describe my experiences so far.
What they do is build a custom index file based on database content. They can integrate via ODBC, but from what I am told customers rarely do that. Instead - and this is what we will probably do - you generate a text export (like CSV) from your primary database and feed that to their indexer. This allows you to be completely independent of the actual table structure (or any SQL database at all); in fact we export data joined together from several tables. Indexes can be incrementally updated later on the fly.
Based on that their server (a mere 250kb or so, running as a console app or Windows service) serves listens for queries on a TCP port. The protocol is text based and looks a little "old", but it is simple and works. Basically you just pass on which of the available indexes you want to query and the search terms (fragments), space delimited.
There are three output formats available, HTML/JavaScript array, XML or CSV. Currently I am working on a Java wrapper for the somewhat "dated" wire protocol. But the results are fantastic: I currently have a sample data set of approximately 500.000 records with 8 columns indexed and my test application triggers a search across all 8 columns for the contents of a JTextField on every keystroke while being edited and can update the results display (JTable) in real-time! This happens without going to the MySQL instance the data originally came from. Based on the columns you get back, you can then ask for the "original" record by querying MySQL with the primary key of that row (needs to be included in the QuickFind index, of course).
The index is about 30-40% the size of the text export version of the data. Indexing was mainly bound by disk I/O speed; my 500.000 records took about a minute or two to be processed.
It is hard to describe this as I found it even hard to believe when I saw an in-house product demo. They presented a 10 million row address database and searched for fragments of names, addresses and phone numbers and when hitting the "Search" button, results came back in under a second - all done on a notebook! From what I am told they often integrate with SAP or CRM systems to improve search times when call center agents just understand fragments of the names or addresses of a caller.
So anyway, I probably won't get much better in describing this. If you need something like this, you should definitely go check this out. Google Translate does a reasonably good job translating their website from German to English, so this might be a good start.
This may not be what you want to hear, because I presume you are trying to solve this with SQL code, but Lucene would be my first choice. You can also build up fairly clever ranking and boosting techniques with additional tools. Lucene is written in Java so it should give you exactly the interface you need.
If you were a Microsoft shop, the majority of what you're looking for is built into SQL Server, and wildcards can be enabled which will give you the ability to do partial word matches.
In Lucene and Lucene.Net, you can use wildcard matches if you like. However, it's not supported to use wildcards as the first symbol in a search. If you want the ability to use first character wildcards, you'll probably need to implement some sort of trie-based index on your own, since it's an expensive operation in many cases to filter the set of terms down to something reasonable for the kind of index most commonly needed for full text search applications, where suffix stemming is generally more valuable.
You can apparently alter the Query Parser instance in Lucene to override this rule by setting setAllowLeadingWildcard to true.
I'm fairly sure that wildcard-on-both-ends-of-a-word searches are inherently inefficient. Skip lists are sometimes used to improve performance on such searches with plaintext, but I think you're more likely to find an implementation like that in something like grep than a generalized text indexing tool.
There are other solutions for the problem that you describe where one word may occur spelled as two, or vice versa. Fuzzy queries are supported in Lucene, for example. Orthographic and morphological variants can be handled using either by providing a filter that offers suggestions based on some sort of Bayesian mechanism, or by indexing tricks, namely, taking a corpus of frequent variants and stuffing the index with those terms. I've even seen knowledge from structured data stuffed into the full text engine (e.g. adding city name and the word "hotel" to records from the hotel table, to make it more likely that "Paris Hotels" will include a record for the pension-house Caisse des Dépôts.) While not exactly a trivial problem, it's manageable without destroying the advantages of word-based searches.
I haven't had this specific requirement myself, but my experience tells me Lucene can do the trick, though perhaps not standalone. I'd definitely use it through Solr as described by Michael Della Bitta in the first answer. The link he gave was spot on - read it for more background.
Briefly, Solr lets you define custom FieldTypes. These consist of an index-time Analyzer and a query-time Analyzer. Analyzers figure out what to do with the text, and each consists of a Tokenizer and zero to many TokenFilters. The Tokenizer splits your text into chunks and then each TokenFilter can add, subtract, or modify tokens.
The field can thus end up indexing something quite different from the original text, including multiple tokens if necessary. So what you want is a multiple-token copy of your original text, which you query by sending Lucene something like "my_ngram_field:sledge". No wildcards involved :-)
Then you follow a model similar to the prefix searching offered up in the solrconfig.xml file:
<fieldType name="prefix_token" class="solr.TextField" positionIncrementGap="1">
<analyzer type="index">
<tokenizer class="solr.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory"/>
<filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory" />
<filter class="solr.EdgeNGramFilterFactory" minGramSize="1" maxGramSize="20"/>
</analyzer>
<analyzer type="query">
<tokenizer class="solr.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory"/>
<filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory" />
</analyzer>
</fieldType>
The EdgeNGramFilterFactory is how they implement prefix matching for search box autocomplete. It takes the tokens coming from the previous stages (single whitespace-delimited words transformed into lower case) and fans them out into every substring on the leading edge. sledgehammer = s,sl,sle,sled,sledg,sledge,sledgeh, etc.
You need to follow this pattern, but replace the EdgeNGramFilterFactory with your own which does all NGrams in the field. The default org.apache.solr.analysis.NGramFilterFactory is a good start, but it does letter transpositions for spell checking. You could copy it and strip that out - it's a pretty simple class to implement.
Once you have your own FieldType (call it ngram_text) using your own MyNGramFilterFactory, just create your original field and the ngram field like so:
<field name="title" type="text" indexed="true" stored="true"/>
<field name="title_ngrams" type="ngram_text" indexed="true" stored="false"/>
Then tell it to copy the original field into the fancy one:
<copyField source="title" dest="title_ngrams"/>
Alright, now when you search "title_ngrams:sledge" you should get a list of documents that contain this. Then in your field list for the query you just tell it to retrieve the field called title rather than the field title_ngrams.
That should be enough of a nudge to allow you to fit things together and tune it to astonishing performance levels rather easily. At an old job we had a database with over ten million products with large HTML descriptions and managed to get Lucene to do both the standard query and the spellcheck in under 200ms on a mid-sized server handling several dozen simultaneous queries. When you have a lot of users, caching kicks in and makes it scream!
Oh, and incremental (though not real-time) indexing is a cinch. It can even do it under high loads since it creates and optimizes the new index in the background and autowarms it before swapping it in. Very slick.
Good luck!
If your table is MyISAM, you can use MySQL's full text search capabilites: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/fulltext-search.html
If not, the "industry standard" is http://www.sphinxsearch.com/
Some ideas on what to do if you are using InnoDB: http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/09/10/what-to-do-with-mysql-full-text-search-while-migrating-to-innodb/
Also, a good presentation that introduces Sphinx and explains architecture+usage
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2670976/Sphinx-High-Performance-Full-Text-Search-for-MySQL-Presentation
Update
Having read your clarification to the question -- Sphinx can do substring matches. You need to set "enable-star" and create an infix index with the appropriate min_infix_length (1 will give you all possible substrings, but obviously the higher the set it, the smaller your index will be, and the faster your searches). See http://sphinxsearch.com/docs/current.html for details.
I'd use Apache Solr. The indexing strategy is entirely tunable (see http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters), can incrementally read directly from your database to populate the index (see DataImportHandler in the same wiki), and can be queried from basically any language that speaks HTTP and XML or something like JSON.
what about using tools such as proposed above (lucene etc.) for full text indexing and having LIKE search for cases, where nothing was found? (i.e. run LIKE only after fulltext indexed search returned zero results)
What you're trying to do is unlikely to ever be all that much faster than LIKE '%searchterm%' without a great deal of custom code. The equivalent of LIKE 'searchterm%' ought to be trivial though. You could do what you're asking by building an index of all possible partial words that aren't covered by the trailing wild-card, but this would result in an unbelievably large index size, and it would be unusually slow for updates. Long tokens would result in Bad Things™. May I ask why you need this? Re: Spotlight... You do realize that Spotlight doesn't do this, right? It's token-based just like every other full-text indexer. Usually query expansion is the appropriate method of getting inexact matches if that's your goal.
Edit:
I had a project exactly like this at one point; part-numbers for all kinds of stuff. We finally settled on searchterm* in Xapian, but I believe Lucene also has the equivalent. You won't find a good solution that handles wild-card searches on either side of the token, but a trailing wild-card is usually more than good enough for what you want, and I suspect you'll find that users adapt to your system fairly quickly if they have any control over cleaning up the data. Combine it with query expansion (or even limited token expansion) and you should be pretty well set. Query expansion would convert a query for "sledgehammer" into "sledgehammer* OR (sledge* hammer*)" or something similar. Not every query will work, but people are already pretty well trained to try related queries when something doesn't work, and as long as at least one or two obvious queries come up with the results they expect, you should be OK. Your best bet is still to clean up the data and organize it better. You'd be surprised how easy this ends up being if you version everything and implement an egalitarian edit policy. Maybe let people add keywords to an entry and be sure to index those, but put limits on how many can be set. Too many and you may actually degrade the search results.
Shingle search could do the trick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-shingling
For example, if you use 3-character shingles, you can split "Roisonic" to: "roi", "son", "ic ", and store all three values, associating them with original entry. When searching for "oison", you first will search for "ois", "iso", "son". First you fuzzy-match all entries by shingles (finding the one with "son"), and then you can refine the search by using exact string matching.
Note that 3-character shingle require the fragment in query to be at least 5 characters long, 4-char shingle requires 7-char query and so on.
The exact answer to your question is right here Whether it will perform sufficiently well for the size of your data is another question.
I'm pretty sure Mysql offers a fulltext option, and it's probably also possible to use Lucene.
See here for related comments
Best efficient way to make a fulltext search in MySQL
A "real" full text index using parts of a word would be many times bigger than the source text and while the search may be faster any update or insert processing would be horibly slow.
You only hope is if there is some sort of pattern to the "mistakes' made. You could apply a set of "AI" type rules to the incoming text and produce cannonical form of the text which you could then apply a full text index to. An example for a rule could be to split a word ending in hammer into two words s/(\w?)(hammer)/\1 \2/g or to change "sledg" "sled" and "schledge" to "sledge". You would need to apply the same set of rules to the query text. In the way a product described as "sledgehammer" could be matched by a search for ' sledg hammer'.
I have the following requirement: -
I have many (say 1 million) values (names).
The user will type a search string.
I don't expect the user to spell the names correctly.
So, I want to make kind of Google "Did you mean". This will list all the possible values from my datastore. There is a similar but not same question here. This did not answer my question.
My question: -
1) I think it is not advisable to store those data in RDBMS. Because then I won't have filter on the SQL queries. And I have to do full table scan. So, in this situation how the data should be stored?
2) The second question is the same as this. But, just for the completeness of my question: how do I search through the large data set?
Suppose, there is a name Franky in the dataset.
If a user types as Phranky, how do I match the Franky? Do I have to loop through all the names?
I came across Levenshtein Distance, which will be a good technique to find the possible strings. But again, my question is do I have to operate on all 1 million values from my data store?
3) I know, Google does it by watching users behavior. But I want to do it without watching user behavior, i.e. by using, I don't know yet, say distance algorithms. Because the former method will require large volume of searches to start with!
4) As Kirk Broadhurst pointed out in an answer below, there are two possible scenarios: -
Users mistyping a word (an edit
distance algorithm)
Users not knowing a word and guessing
(a phonetic match algorithm)
I am interested in both of these. They are really two separate things; e.g. Sean and Shawn sound the same but have an edit distance of 3 - too high to be considered a typo.
The Soundex algorithm may help you out with this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundex
You could pre-generate the soundex values for each name and store it in the database, then index that to avoid having to scan the table.
the Bitap Algorithm is designed to find an approximate match in a body of text. Maybe you could use that to calculate probable matches. (it's based on the Levenshtein Distance)
(Update: after having read Ben S answer (use an existing solution, possibly aspell) is the way to go)
As others said, Google does auto correction by watching users correct themselves. If I search for "someting" (sic) and then immediately for "something" it is very likely that the first query was incorrect. A possible heuristic to detect this would be:
If a user has done two searches in a short time window, and
the first query did not yield any results (or the user did not click on anything)
the second query did yield useful results
the two queries are similar (have a small Levenshtein distance)
then the second query is a possible refinement of the first query which you can store and present to other users.
Note that you probably need a lot of queries to gather enough data for these suggestions to be useful.
I would consider using a pre-existing solution for this.
Aspell with a custom dictionary of the names might be well suited for this. Generating the dictionary file will pre-compute all the information required to quickly give suggestions.
This is an old problem, DWIM (Do What I Mean), famously implemented on the Xerox Alto by Warren Teitelman. If your problem is based on pronunciation, here is a survey paper that might help:
J. Zobel and P. Dart, "Phonetic String Matching: Lessons from Information Retieval," Proc. 19th Annual Inter. ACM SIGIR Conf. on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR'96), Aug. 1996, pp. 166-172.
I'm told by my friends who work in information retrieval that Soundex as described by Knuth is now considered very outdated.
Just use Solr or a similar search server, and then you won't have to be an expert in the subject. With the list of spelling suggestions, run a search with each suggested result, and if there are more results than the current search query, add that as a "did you mean" result. (This prevents bogus spelling suggestions that don't actually return more relevant hits.) This way, you don't require a lot of data to be collected to make an initial "did you mean" offering, though Solr has mechanisms by which you can hand-tune the results of certain queries.
Generally, you wouldn't be using an RDBMS for this type of searching, instead depending on read-only, slightly stale databases intended for this purpose. (Solr adds a friendly programming interface and configuration to an underlying Lucene engine and database.) On the Web site for the company that I work for, a nightly service selects altered records from the RDBMS and pushes them as a documents into Solr. With very little effort, we have a system where the search box can search products, customer reviews, Web site pages, and blog entries very efficiently and offer spelling suggestions in the search results, as well as faceted browsing such as you see at NewEgg, Netflix, or Home Depot, with very little added strain on the server (particularly the RDBMS). (I believe both Zappo's [the new site] and Netflix use Solr internally, but don't quote me on that.)
In your scenario, you'd be populating the Solr index with the list of names, and select an appropriate matching algorithm in the configuration file.
Just as in one of the answers to the question you reference, Peter Norvig's great solution would work for this, complete with Python code. Google probably does query suggestion a number of ways, but the thing they have going for them is lots of data. Sure they can go model user behavior with huge query logs, but they can also just use text data to find the most likely correct spelling for a word by looking at which correction is more common. The word someting does not appear in a dictionary and even though it is a common misspelling, the correct spelling is far more common. When you find similar words you want the word that is both the closest to the misspelling and the most probable in the given context.
Norvig's solution is to take a corpus of several books from Project Gutenberg and count the words that occur. From those words he creates a dictionary where you can also estimate the probability of a word (COUNT(word) / COUNT(all words)). If you store this all as a straight hash, access is fast, but storage might become a problem, so you can also use things like suffix tries. The access time is still the same (if you implement it based on a hash), but storage requirements can be much less.
Next, he generates simple edits for the misspelt word (by deleting, adding, or substituting a letter) and then constrains the list of possibilities using the dictionary from the corpus. This is based on the idea of edit distance (such as Levenshtein distance), with the simple heuristic that most spelling errors take place with an edit distance of 2 or less. You can widen this as your needs and computational power dictate.
Once he has the possible words, he finds the most probable word from the corpus and that is your suggestion. There are many things you can add to improve the model. For example, you can also adjust the probability by considering the keyboard distance of the letters in the misspelling. Of course, that assumes the user is using a QWERTY keyboard in English. For example, transposing an e and a q is more likely than transposing an e and an l.
For people who are recommending Soundex, it is very out of date. Metaphone (simpler) or Double Metaphone (complex) are much better. If it really is name data, it should work fine, if the names are European-ish in origin, or at least phonetic.
As for the search, if you care to roll your own, rather than use Aspell or some other smart data structure... pre-calculating possible matches is O(n^2), in the naive case, but we know in order to be matching at all, they have to have a "phoneme" overlap, or may even two. This pre-indexing step (which has a low false positive rate) can take down the complexity a lot (to in the practical case, something like O(30^2 * k^2), where k is << n).
You have two possible issues that you need to address (or not address if you so choose)
Users mistyping a word (an edit distance algorithm)
Users not knowing a word and guessing (a phonetic match algorithm)
Are you interested in both of these, or just one or the other? They are really two separate things; e.g. Sean and Shawn sound the same but have an edit distance of 3 - too high to be considered a typo.
You should pre-index the count of words to ensure you are only suggesting relevant answers (similar to ealdent's suggestion). For example, if I entered sith I might expect to be asked if I meant smith, however if I typed smith it would not make sense to suggest sith. Determine an algorithm which measures the relative likelihood a word and only suggest words that are more likely.
My experience in loose matching reinforced a simple but important learning - perform as many indexing/sieve layers as you need and don't be scared of including more than 2 or 3. Cull out anything that doesn't start with the correct letter, for instance, then cull everything that doesn't end in the correct letter, and so on. You really only want to perform edit distance calculation on the smallest possible dataset as it is a very intensive operation.
So if you have an O(n), an O(nlogn), and an O(n^2) algorithm - perform all three, in that order, to ensure you are only putting your 'good prospects' through to your heavy algorithm.
I have a site which is searchable using Lucene. I've noticed from logs that users sometimes don't find what they're looking for because they enter a singular term, but only the plural version of that term is used on the site. I would like the search to find uses of other forms of a word as well. This is a problem that I'm sure has been solved many times over, so what are the best practices for this?
Please note: this site only has English content.
Some approaches I've thought of:
Look up the word in some kind of thesaurus file to determine alternate forms of a given word.
Some examples:
Searches for "car", also add "cars" to the query.
Searches for "carry", also add "carries" and "carried" to the query.
Searches for "small", also add "smaller" and "smallest" to the query.
Searches for "can", also add "can't", "cannot", "cans", and "canned" to the query.
And it should work in reverse (i.e. search for "carries" should add "carry" and "carried").
Drawbacks:
Doesn't work for many new technical words unless the dictionary/thesaurus is updated frequently.
I'm not sure about the performance of searching the thesaurus file.
Generate the alternate forms algorithmically, based on some heuristics.
Some examples:
If the word ends in "s" or "es" or "ed" or "er" or "est", drop the suffix
If the word ends in "ies" or "ied" or "ier" or "iest", convert to "y"
If the word ends in "y", convert to "ies", "ied", "ier", and "iest"
Try adding "s", "es", "er" and "est" to the word.
Drawbacks:
Generates lots of non-words for most inputs.
Feels like a hack.
Looks like something you'd find on TheDailyWTF.com. :)
Something much more sophisticated?
I'm thinking of doing some kind of combination of the first two approaches, but I'm not sure where to find a thesaurus file (or what it's called, as "thesaurus" isn't quite right, but neither is "dictionary").
Consider including the PorterStemFilter in your analysis pipeline. Be sure to perform the same analysis on queries that is used when building the index.
I've also used the Lancaster stemming algorithm with good results. Using the PorterStemFilter as a guide, it is easy to integrate with Lucene.
Word stemming works OK for English, however for languages where word stemming is nearly impossible (like mine) option #1 is viable. I know of at least one such implementation for my language (Icelandic) for Lucene that seems to work very well.
Some of those look like pretty neat ideas. Personally, I would just add some tags to the query (query transformation) to make it fuzzy, or you can use the builtin FuzzyQuery, which uses Levenshtein edit distances, which would help for mispellings.
Using fuzzy search 'query tags', Levenshtein is also used. Consider a search for 'car'. If you change the query to 'car~', it will find 'car' and 'cars' and so on. There are other transformations to the query that should handle almost everything you need.
If you're working in a specialised field (I did this with horticulture) or with a language that does't play nicely with normal stemming methods you could use the query logging to create a manual stemming table.
Just create a word -> stem mapping for all the mismatches you can think of / people are searching for, then when indexing or searching replace any word that occurs in the table with the appropriate stem. Thanks to query caching this is a pretty cheap solution.
Stemming is a pretty standard way to address this issue. I've found that the Porter stemmer is way to aggressive for standard keyword search. It ends up conflating words together that have different meanings. Try the KStemmer algorithm.
My users will import through cut and paste a large string that will contain company names.
I have an existing and growing MYSQL database of companies names, each with a unique company_id.
I want to be able to parse through the string and assign to each of the user-inputed company names a fuzzy match.
Right now, just doing a straight-up string match, is also slow. ** Will Soundex indexing be faster? How can I give the user some options as they are typing? **
For example, someone writes:
Microsoft -> Microsoft
Bare Essentials -> Bare Escentuals
Polycom, Inc. -> Polycom
I have found the following threads that seem similar to this question, but the poster has not approved and I'm not sure if their use-case is applicable:
How to find best fuzzy match for a string in a large string database
Matching inexact company names in Java
You can start with using SOUNDEX(), this will probably do for what you need (I picture an auto-suggestion box of already-existing alternatives for what the user is typing).
The drawbacks of SOUNDEX() are:
its inability to differentiate longer strings. Only the first few characters are taken into account, longer strings that diverge at the end generate the same SOUNDEX value
the fact the the first letter must be the same or you won't find a match easily. SQL Server has DIFFERENCE() function to tell you how much two SOUNDEX values are apart, but I think MySQL has nothing of that kind built in.
for MySQL, at least according to the docs, SOUNDEX is broken for unicode input
Example:
SELECT SOUNDEX('Microsoft')
SELECT SOUNDEX('Microsift')
SELECT SOUNDEX('Microsift Corporation')
SELECT SOUNDEX('Microsift Subsidary')
/* all of these return 'M262' */
For more advanced needs, I think you need to look at the Levenshtein distance (also called "edit distance") of two strings and work with a threshold. This is the more complex (=slower) solution, but it allows for greater flexibility.
Main drawback is, that you need both strings to calculate the distance between them. With SOUNDEX you can store a pre-calculated SOUNDEX in your table and compare/sort/group/filter on that. With the Levenshtein distance, you might find that the difference between "Microsoft" and "Nzcrosoft" is only 2, but it will take a lot more time to come to that result.
In any case, an example Levenshtein distance function for MySQL can be found at codejanitor.com: Levenshtein Distance as a MySQL Stored Function (Feb. 10th, 2007).
SOUNDEX is an OK algorithm for this, but there have been recent advances on this topic. Another algorithm was created called the Metaphone, and it was later revised to a Double Metaphone algorithm. I have personally used the java apache commons implementation of double metaphone and it is customizable and accurate.
They have implementations in lots of other languages on the wikipedia page for it, too. This question has been answered, but should you find any of the identified problems with the SOUNDEX appearing in your application, it's nice to know there are options. Sometimes it can generate the same code for two really different words. Double metaphone was created to help take care of that problem.
Stolen from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundex
As a response to deficiencies in the
Soundex algorithm, Lawrence Philips
developed the Metaphone algorithm for
the same purpose. Philips later
developed an improvement to Metaphone,
which he called Double-Metaphone.
Double-Metaphone includes a much
larger encoding rule set than its
predecessor, handles a subset of
non-Latin characters, and returns a
primary and a secondary encoding to
account for different pronunciations
of a single word in English.
At the bottom of the double metaphone page, they have the implementations of it for all kinds of programming languages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Metaphone
Python & MySQL implementation: https://github.com/AtomBoy/double-metaphone
Firstly, I would like to add that you should be very careful when using any form of Phonetic/Fuzzy Matching Algorithm, as this kind of logic is exactly that, Fuzzy or to put it more simply; potentially inaccurate. Especially true when used for matching company names.
A good approach is to seek corroboration from other data, such as address information, postal codes, tel numbers, Geo Coordinates etc. This will help confirm the probability of your data being accurately matched.
There are a whole range of issues related to B2B Data Matching too many to be addressed here, I have written more about Company Name Matching in my blog (also an updated article), but in summary the key issues are:
Looking at the whole string is unhelpful as the most important part
of a Company Name is not necessarily at the beginning of the Company
Name. i.e. ‘The Proctor and Gamble Company’ or ‘United States Federal
Reserve ‘
Abbreviations are common place in Company Names i.e. HP, GM, GE, P&G,
D&B etc..
Some companies deliberately spell their names incorrectly as part of
their branding and to differentiate themselves from other companies.
Matching exact data is easy, but matching non-exact data can be much more time consuming and I would suggest that you should consider how you will be validating the non-exact matches to ensure these are of acceptable quality.
Before we built Match2Lists.com, we used to spend an unhealthy amount of time validating fuzzy matches. In Match2Lists we incorporated a powerful Visualisation tool enabling us to review non-exact matches, this proved to be a real game changer in terms of match validation, reducing our costs and enabling us to deliver results much more quickly.
Best of Luck!!
Here's a link to the php discussion of the soundex functions in mysql and php. I'd start from there, then expand into your other not-so-well-defined requirements.
Your reference references the Levenshtein methodology for matching. Two problems. 1. It's more appropriate for measuring the difference between two known words, not for searching. 2. It discusses a solution designed more to detect things like proofing errors (using "Levenshtien" for "Levenshtein") rather than spelling errors (where the user doesn't know how to spell, say "Levenshtein" and types in "Levinstein". I usually associate it with looking for a phrase in a book rather than a key value in a database.
EDIT: In response to comment--
Can you at least get the users to put the company names into multiple text boxes; 2. or use an unambigous name delimiter (say backslash); 3. leave out articles ("The") and generic abbreviations (or you can filter for these); 4. Squoosh the spaces out and match for that also (so Micro Soft => microsoft, Bare Essentials => bareessentials); 5. Filter out punctuation; 6. Do "OR" searches on words ("bare" OR "essentials") - people will inevitably leave one or the other out sometimes.
Test like mad and use the feedback loop from users.
the best function for fuzzy matching is levenshtein. it's traditionally used by spell checkers, so that might be the way to go. there's a UDF for it available here: http://joshdrew.com/
the downside to using levenshtein is that it won't scale very well. a better idea might be to dump the whole table in to a spell checker custom dictionary file and do the suggestion from your application tier instead of the database tier.
This answer results in indexed lookup of almost any entity using input of 2 or 3 characters or more.
Basically, create a new table with 2 columns, word and key. Run a process on the original table containing the column to be fuzzy searched. This process will extract every individual word from the original column and write these words to the word table along with the original key. During this process, commonly occurring words like 'the','and', etc should be discarded.
We then create several indices on the word table, as follows...
A normal, lowercase index on word + key
An index on the 2nd through 5th character + key
An index on the 3rd through 6th character + key
Alternately, create a SOUNDEX() index on the word column.
Once this is in place, we take any user input and search using normal word = input or LIKE input%. We never do a LIKE %input as we are always looking for a match on any of the first 3 characters, which are all indexed.
If your original table is massive, you could partition the word table by chunks of the alphabet to ensure the user's input is being narrowed down to candidate rows immediately.
Though the question asks about how to do fuzzy searches in MySQL, I'd recommend considering using a separate fuzzy search (aka typo tolerant) engine to accomplish this. Here are some search engines to consider:
ElasticSearch (Open source, has a ton of features, and so is also complex to operate)
Algolia (Proprietary, but has great docs and super easy to get up and running)
Typesense (Open source, provides the same fuzzy search-as-you-type feature as Algolia)
Check if it's spelled wrong before querying using a trusted and well tested spell checking library on the server side, then do a simple query for the original text AND the first suggested correct spelling (if spell check determined it was misspelled).
You can create custom dictionaries for any spell check library worth using, which you may need to do for matching more obscure company names.
It's way faster to match against two simple strings than it is to do a Levenshtein distance calculation against an entire table. MySQL is not well suited for this.
I tackled a similar problem recently and wasted a lot of time fiddling around with algorithms, so I really wish there had been more people out there cautioning against doing this in MySQL.
Probably been suggested before but why not dump the data out to Excel and use the Fuzzy Match Excel plugin. This will give a score from 0 to 1 (1 being 100%).
I did this for business partner (company) data that was held in a database.
Download the latest UK Companies House data and score against that.
For ROW data its more complex as we had to do a more manual process.