Calculate Levenshtein distance between two strings in Python The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Edit Distance Between Two StringsString Matching and ClusteringSorting movie search results by similarityEdit distance between 2 stringsMaking the Levenshtein distance code cleanerEdit distance (Optimal Alignment) - follow upGet Levenshtein DistanceMessage classification with Levenshtein DistanceCode to implement the Jaro similarity for fuzzy matching stringsFinding differences in strings with Levenshtein distance and soundex

Still taught to reverse oxidation half cells in electrochemistry?

ELI5: Why do they say that Israel would have been the fourth country to land a spacecraft on the Moon and why do they call it low cost?

Why can't wing-mounted spoilers be used to steepen approaches?

Empty set is subset of every set? If yes, why that...

What aspect of planet Earth must be changed to prevent the industrial revolution?

system call string length limit

Working through the single responsibility principle (SRP) in Python when calls are expensive

What can I do if neighbor is blocking my solar panels intentionally?

Semisimplicity of the category of coherent sheaves?

When did F become S? Why?

First use of “packing” as in carrying a gun

Are spiders unable to hurt humans, especially very small spiders?

Did the new image of black hole confirm the general theory of relativity?

Did the UK government pay "millions and millions of dollars" to try to snag Julian Assange?

What information about me do stores get via my credit card?

How is simplicity better than precision and clarity in prose?

Change bounding box of math glyphs in LuaTeX

how can a perfect fourth interval be considered either consonant or dissonant?

How does ice melt when immersed in water

He got a vote 80% that of Emmanuel Macron’s

Simulating Exploding Dice

Take groceries in checked luggage

Sort list of array linked objects by keys and values

Who or what is the being for whom Being is a question for Heidegger?



Calculate Levenshtein distance between two strings in Python



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Edit Distance Between Two StringsString Matching and ClusteringSorting movie search results by similarityEdit distance between 2 stringsMaking the Levenshtein distance code cleanerEdit distance (Optimal Alignment) - follow upGet Levenshtein DistanceMessage classification with Levenshtein DistanceCode to implement the Jaro similarity for fuzzy matching stringsFinding differences in strings with Levenshtein distance and soundex



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








11












$begingroup$


I need a function that checks how different are two different strings. I chose the Levenshtein distance as a quick approach, and implemented this function:



from difflib import ndiff

def calculate_levenshtein_distance(str_1, str_2):
"""
The Levenshtein distance is a string metric for measuring the difference between two sequences.
It is calculated as the minimum number of single-character edits necessary to transform one string into another
"""
distance = 0
buffer_removed = buffer_added = 0
for x in ndiff(str_1, str_2):
code = x[0]
# Code ? is ignored as it does not translate to any modification
if code == ' ':
distance += max(buffer_removed, buffer_added)
buffer_removed = buffer_added = 0
elif code == '-':
buffer_removed += 1
elif code == '+':
buffer_added += 1
distance += max(buffer_removed, buffer_added)
return distance


Then calling it as:



similarity = 1 - calculate_levenshtein_distance(str_1, str_2) / max(len(str_1), len(str_2))


How sloppy/prone to errors is this code? How can it be improved?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Kyra_W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$


















    11












    $begingroup$


    I need a function that checks how different are two different strings. I chose the Levenshtein distance as a quick approach, and implemented this function:



    from difflib import ndiff

    def calculate_levenshtein_distance(str_1, str_2):
    """
    The Levenshtein distance is a string metric for measuring the difference between two sequences.
    It is calculated as the minimum number of single-character edits necessary to transform one string into another
    """
    distance = 0
    buffer_removed = buffer_added = 0
    for x in ndiff(str_1, str_2):
    code = x[0]
    # Code ? is ignored as it does not translate to any modification
    if code == ' ':
    distance += max(buffer_removed, buffer_added)
    buffer_removed = buffer_added = 0
    elif code == '-':
    buffer_removed += 1
    elif code == '+':
    buffer_added += 1
    distance += max(buffer_removed, buffer_added)
    return distance


    Then calling it as:



    similarity = 1 - calculate_levenshtein_distance(str_1, str_2) / max(len(str_1), len(str_2))


    How sloppy/prone to errors is this code? How can it be improved?










    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    Kyra_W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.







    $endgroup$














      11












      11








      11


      2



      $begingroup$


      I need a function that checks how different are two different strings. I chose the Levenshtein distance as a quick approach, and implemented this function:



      from difflib import ndiff

      def calculate_levenshtein_distance(str_1, str_2):
      """
      The Levenshtein distance is a string metric for measuring the difference between two sequences.
      It is calculated as the minimum number of single-character edits necessary to transform one string into another
      """
      distance = 0
      buffer_removed = buffer_added = 0
      for x in ndiff(str_1, str_2):
      code = x[0]
      # Code ? is ignored as it does not translate to any modification
      if code == ' ':
      distance += max(buffer_removed, buffer_added)
      buffer_removed = buffer_added = 0
      elif code == '-':
      buffer_removed += 1
      elif code == '+':
      buffer_added += 1
      distance += max(buffer_removed, buffer_added)
      return distance


      Then calling it as:



      similarity = 1 - calculate_levenshtein_distance(str_1, str_2) / max(len(str_1), len(str_2))


      How sloppy/prone to errors is this code? How can it be improved?










      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Kyra_W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.







      $endgroup$




      I need a function that checks how different are two different strings. I chose the Levenshtein distance as a quick approach, and implemented this function:



      from difflib import ndiff

      def calculate_levenshtein_distance(str_1, str_2):
      """
      The Levenshtein distance is a string metric for measuring the difference between two sequences.
      It is calculated as the minimum number of single-character edits necessary to transform one string into another
      """
      distance = 0
      buffer_removed = buffer_added = 0
      for x in ndiff(str_1, str_2):
      code = x[0]
      # Code ? is ignored as it does not translate to any modification
      if code == ' ':
      distance += max(buffer_removed, buffer_added)
      buffer_removed = buffer_added = 0
      elif code == '-':
      buffer_removed += 1
      elif code == '+':
      buffer_added += 1
      distance += max(buffer_removed, buffer_added)
      return distance


      Then calling it as:



      similarity = 1 - calculate_levenshtein_distance(str_1, str_2) / max(len(str_1), len(str_2))


      How sloppy/prone to errors is this code? How can it be improved?







      python edit-distance






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Kyra_W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Kyra_W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Apr 8 at 19:14









      Reinderien

      5,445927




      5,445927






      New contributor




      Kyra_W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked Apr 8 at 10:01









      Kyra_WKyra_W

      585




      585




      New contributor




      Kyra_W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Kyra_W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Kyra_W is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          14












          $begingroup$

          There is a module available for exactly that calculation, python-Levenshtein. You can install it with pip install python-Levenshtein.



          It is implemented in C, so is probably faster than anything you can come up with yourself.



          from Levenshtein import distance as levenshtein_distance



          According to the docstring conventions, your docstring should look like this, i.e. with the indentation aligned to the """ and the line length curtailed to 80 characters.



          def calculate_levenshtein_distance(str_1, str_2):
          """
          The Levenshtein distance is a string metric for measuring the difference
          between two sequences.
          It is calculated as the minimum number of single-character edits necessary to
          transform one string into another.
          """
          ...





          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 10




            $begingroup$
            Just to note the module is licensed under GPL 2.0 so watch out if you're using it for work.
            $endgroup$
            – lucasgcb
            Apr 8 at 13:08










          • $begingroup$
            Just to point out a small nitpick to other people who may stumble upon this answer, as per help center: "Every answer must make at least one insightful observation about the code in the question. Answers that merely provide an alternate solution with no explanation or justification do not constitute valid Code Review answers and may be deleted." While this answer does provide alternative and existing module suggestion, it also goes into some suggestions about improving code quality. So it's an example of a decent answer
            $endgroup$
            – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
            Apr 9 at 0:02










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks! I did not know of this module. Will check it out
            $endgroup$
            – Kyra_W
            Apr 9 at 8:21






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @SergiyKolodyazhnyy While I (obviously) agree, and that is one of the reasons I added that part, I would actually argue that "It is implemented in C, so is probably faster than anything you can come up with yourself" would get around the "no explanation or justification" clause
            $endgroup$
            – Graipher
            Apr 9 at 8:21



















          9












          $begingroup$

          The code itself is rather clear. There are some smaller changes I would make



          tuple unpacking



          You can use tuple unpacking to do:



          for code, *_ in ndiff(str1, str2):


          instead of:



          for x in ndiff(str_1, str_2):
          code = x[0]


          dict results:



          Instead of a counter for the additions and removals, I would keep it in 1 dict: counter = ("+": 0, "-": 0)



          def levenshtein_distance(str1, str2, ):
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          distance = 0
          for edit_code, *_ in ndiff(str1, str2):
          if edit_code == " ":
          distance += max(counter.values())
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          else:
          counter[edit_code] += 1
          distance += max(counter.values())
          return distance


          generators



          A smaller, less useful variation, is to let this method be a generator, and use the builtin sum to do the summary. this saves 1 variable inside the function:



          def levenshtein_distance_gen(str1, str2, ):
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          for edit_code, *_ in ndiff(str1, str2):
          if edit_code == " ":
          yield max(counter.values())
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          else:
          counter[edit_code] += 1
          yield max(counter.values())

          sum(levenshtein_distance_gen(str1, str2))



          timings



          The differences in timings between the original and both these variations are minimal, and within the variation of results. This is rather logical, since for simple strings (aaabbbc and abcabcabc) 90% of the time is spent in ndiff






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Awesome suggestions. I had not even considered the generator approach, but it looks very nice. Thanks
            $endgroup$
            – Kyra_W
            Apr 9 at 8:24











          Your Answer






          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
          StackExchange.snippets.init();
          );
          );
          , "code-snippets");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "196"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );






          Kyra_W is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f217065%2fcalculate-levenshtein-distance-between-two-strings-in-python%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          14












          $begingroup$

          There is a module available for exactly that calculation, python-Levenshtein. You can install it with pip install python-Levenshtein.



          It is implemented in C, so is probably faster than anything you can come up with yourself.



          from Levenshtein import distance as levenshtein_distance



          According to the docstring conventions, your docstring should look like this, i.e. with the indentation aligned to the """ and the line length curtailed to 80 characters.



          def calculate_levenshtein_distance(str_1, str_2):
          """
          The Levenshtein distance is a string metric for measuring the difference
          between two sequences.
          It is calculated as the minimum number of single-character edits necessary to
          transform one string into another.
          """
          ...





          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 10




            $begingroup$
            Just to note the module is licensed under GPL 2.0 so watch out if you're using it for work.
            $endgroup$
            – lucasgcb
            Apr 8 at 13:08










          • $begingroup$
            Just to point out a small nitpick to other people who may stumble upon this answer, as per help center: "Every answer must make at least one insightful observation about the code in the question. Answers that merely provide an alternate solution with no explanation or justification do not constitute valid Code Review answers and may be deleted." While this answer does provide alternative and existing module suggestion, it also goes into some suggestions about improving code quality. So it's an example of a decent answer
            $endgroup$
            – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
            Apr 9 at 0:02










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks! I did not know of this module. Will check it out
            $endgroup$
            – Kyra_W
            Apr 9 at 8:21






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @SergiyKolodyazhnyy While I (obviously) agree, and that is one of the reasons I added that part, I would actually argue that "It is implemented in C, so is probably faster than anything you can come up with yourself" would get around the "no explanation or justification" clause
            $endgroup$
            – Graipher
            Apr 9 at 8:21
















          14












          $begingroup$

          There is a module available for exactly that calculation, python-Levenshtein. You can install it with pip install python-Levenshtein.



          It is implemented in C, so is probably faster than anything you can come up with yourself.



          from Levenshtein import distance as levenshtein_distance



          According to the docstring conventions, your docstring should look like this, i.e. with the indentation aligned to the """ and the line length curtailed to 80 characters.



          def calculate_levenshtein_distance(str_1, str_2):
          """
          The Levenshtein distance is a string metric for measuring the difference
          between two sequences.
          It is calculated as the minimum number of single-character edits necessary to
          transform one string into another.
          """
          ...





          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 10




            $begingroup$
            Just to note the module is licensed under GPL 2.0 so watch out if you're using it for work.
            $endgroup$
            – lucasgcb
            Apr 8 at 13:08










          • $begingroup$
            Just to point out a small nitpick to other people who may stumble upon this answer, as per help center: "Every answer must make at least one insightful observation about the code in the question. Answers that merely provide an alternate solution with no explanation or justification do not constitute valid Code Review answers and may be deleted." While this answer does provide alternative and existing module suggestion, it also goes into some suggestions about improving code quality. So it's an example of a decent answer
            $endgroup$
            – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
            Apr 9 at 0:02










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks! I did not know of this module. Will check it out
            $endgroup$
            – Kyra_W
            Apr 9 at 8:21






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @SergiyKolodyazhnyy While I (obviously) agree, and that is one of the reasons I added that part, I would actually argue that "It is implemented in C, so is probably faster than anything you can come up with yourself" would get around the "no explanation or justification" clause
            $endgroup$
            – Graipher
            Apr 9 at 8:21














          14












          14








          14





          $begingroup$

          There is a module available for exactly that calculation, python-Levenshtein. You can install it with pip install python-Levenshtein.



          It is implemented in C, so is probably faster than anything you can come up with yourself.



          from Levenshtein import distance as levenshtein_distance



          According to the docstring conventions, your docstring should look like this, i.e. with the indentation aligned to the """ and the line length curtailed to 80 characters.



          def calculate_levenshtein_distance(str_1, str_2):
          """
          The Levenshtein distance is a string metric for measuring the difference
          between two sequences.
          It is calculated as the minimum number of single-character edits necessary to
          transform one string into another.
          """
          ...





          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          There is a module available for exactly that calculation, python-Levenshtein. You can install it with pip install python-Levenshtein.



          It is implemented in C, so is probably faster than anything you can come up with yourself.



          from Levenshtein import distance as levenshtein_distance



          According to the docstring conventions, your docstring should look like this, i.e. with the indentation aligned to the """ and the line length curtailed to 80 characters.



          def calculate_levenshtein_distance(str_1, str_2):
          """
          The Levenshtein distance is a string metric for measuring the difference
          between two sequences.
          It is calculated as the minimum number of single-character edits necessary to
          transform one string into another.
          """
          ...






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Apr 8 at 10:43

























          answered Apr 8 at 10:37









          GraipherGraipher

          27.2k54497




          27.2k54497







          • 10




            $begingroup$
            Just to note the module is licensed under GPL 2.0 so watch out if you're using it for work.
            $endgroup$
            – lucasgcb
            Apr 8 at 13:08










          • $begingroup$
            Just to point out a small nitpick to other people who may stumble upon this answer, as per help center: "Every answer must make at least one insightful observation about the code in the question. Answers that merely provide an alternate solution with no explanation or justification do not constitute valid Code Review answers and may be deleted." While this answer does provide alternative and existing module suggestion, it also goes into some suggestions about improving code quality. So it's an example of a decent answer
            $endgroup$
            – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
            Apr 9 at 0:02










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks! I did not know of this module. Will check it out
            $endgroup$
            – Kyra_W
            Apr 9 at 8:21






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @SergiyKolodyazhnyy While I (obviously) agree, and that is one of the reasons I added that part, I would actually argue that "It is implemented in C, so is probably faster than anything you can come up with yourself" would get around the "no explanation or justification" clause
            $endgroup$
            – Graipher
            Apr 9 at 8:21













          • 10




            $begingroup$
            Just to note the module is licensed under GPL 2.0 so watch out if you're using it for work.
            $endgroup$
            – lucasgcb
            Apr 8 at 13:08










          • $begingroup$
            Just to point out a small nitpick to other people who may stumble upon this answer, as per help center: "Every answer must make at least one insightful observation about the code in the question. Answers that merely provide an alternate solution with no explanation or justification do not constitute valid Code Review answers and may be deleted." While this answer does provide alternative and existing module suggestion, it also goes into some suggestions about improving code quality. So it's an example of a decent answer
            $endgroup$
            – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
            Apr 9 at 0:02










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks! I did not know of this module. Will check it out
            $endgroup$
            – Kyra_W
            Apr 9 at 8:21






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @SergiyKolodyazhnyy While I (obviously) agree, and that is one of the reasons I added that part, I would actually argue that "It is implemented in C, so is probably faster than anything you can come up with yourself" would get around the "no explanation or justification" clause
            $endgroup$
            – Graipher
            Apr 9 at 8:21








          10




          10




          $begingroup$
          Just to note the module is licensed under GPL 2.0 so watch out if you're using it for work.
          $endgroup$
          – lucasgcb
          Apr 8 at 13:08




          $begingroup$
          Just to note the module is licensed under GPL 2.0 so watch out if you're using it for work.
          $endgroup$
          – lucasgcb
          Apr 8 at 13:08












          $begingroup$
          Just to point out a small nitpick to other people who may stumble upon this answer, as per help center: "Every answer must make at least one insightful observation about the code in the question. Answers that merely provide an alternate solution with no explanation or justification do not constitute valid Code Review answers and may be deleted." While this answer does provide alternative and existing module suggestion, it also goes into some suggestions about improving code quality. So it's an example of a decent answer
          $endgroup$
          – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
          Apr 9 at 0:02




          $begingroup$
          Just to point out a small nitpick to other people who may stumble upon this answer, as per help center: "Every answer must make at least one insightful observation about the code in the question. Answers that merely provide an alternate solution with no explanation or justification do not constitute valid Code Review answers and may be deleted." While this answer does provide alternative and existing module suggestion, it also goes into some suggestions about improving code quality. So it's an example of a decent answer
          $endgroup$
          – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
          Apr 9 at 0:02












          $begingroup$
          Thanks! I did not know of this module. Will check it out
          $endgroup$
          – Kyra_W
          Apr 9 at 8:21




          $begingroup$
          Thanks! I did not know of this module. Will check it out
          $endgroup$
          – Kyra_W
          Apr 9 at 8:21




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @SergiyKolodyazhnyy While I (obviously) agree, and that is one of the reasons I added that part, I would actually argue that "It is implemented in C, so is probably faster than anything you can come up with yourself" would get around the "no explanation or justification" clause
          $endgroup$
          – Graipher
          Apr 9 at 8:21





          $begingroup$
          @SergiyKolodyazhnyy While I (obviously) agree, and that is one of the reasons I added that part, I would actually argue that "It is implemented in C, so is probably faster than anything you can come up with yourself" would get around the "no explanation or justification" clause
          $endgroup$
          – Graipher
          Apr 9 at 8:21














          9












          $begingroup$

          The code itself is rather clear. There are some smaller changes I would make



          tuple unpacking



          You can use tuple unpacking to do:



          for code, *_ in ndiff(str1, str2):


          instead of:



          for x in ndiff(str_1, str_2):
          code = x[0]


          dict results:



          Instead of a counter for the additions and removals, I would keep it in 1 dict: counter = ("+": 0, "-": 0)



          def levenshtein_distance(str1, str2, ):
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          distance = 0
          for edit_code, *_ in ndiff(str1, str2):
          if edit_code == " ":
          distance += max(counter.values())
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          else:
          counter[edit_code] += 1
          distance += max(counter.values())
          return distance


          generators



          A smaller, less useful variation, is to let this method be a generator, and use the builtin sum to do the summary. this saves 1 variable inside the function:



          def levenshtein_distance_gen(str1, str2, ):
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          for edit_code, *_ in ndiff(str1, str2):
          if edit_code == " ":
          yield max(counter.values())
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          else:
          counter[edit_code] += 1
          yield max(counter.values())

          sum(levenshtein_distance_gen(str1, str2))



          timings



          The differences in timings between the original and both these variations are minimal, and within the variation of results. This is rather logical, since for simple strings (aaabbbc and abcabcabc) 90% of the time is spent in ndiff






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Awesome suggestions. I had not even considered the generator approach, but it looks very nice. Thanks
            $endgroup$
            – Kyra_W
            Apr 9 at 8:24















          9












          $begingroup$

          The code itself is rather clear. There are some smaller changes I would make



          tuple unpacking



          You can use tuple unpacking to do:



          for code, *_ in ndiff(str1, str2):


          instead of:



          for x in ndiff(str_1, str_2):
          code = x[0]


          dict results:



          Instead of a counter for the additions and removals, I would keep it in 1 dict: counter = ("+": 0, "-": 0)



          def levenshtein_distance(str1, str2, ):
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          distance = 0
          for edit_code, *_ in ndiff(str1, str2):
          if edit_code == " ":
          distance += max(counter.values())
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          else:
          counter[edit_code] += 1
          distance += max(counter.values())
          return distance


          generators



          A smaller, less useful variation, is to let this method be a generator, and use the builtin sum to do the summary. this saves 1 variable inside the function:



          def levenshtein_distance_gen(str1, str2, ):
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          for edit_code, *_ in ndiff(str1, str2):
          if edit_code == " ":
          yield max(counter.values())
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          else:
          counter[edit_code] += 1
          yield max(counter.values())

          sum(levenshtein_distance_gen(str1, str2))



          timings



          The differences in timings between the original and both these variations are minimal, and within the variation of results. This is rather logical, since for simple strings (aaabbbc and abcabcabc) 90% of the time is spent in ndiff






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Awesome suggestions. I had not even considered the generator approach, but it looks very nice. Thanks
            $endgroup$
            – Kyra_W
            Apr 9 at 8:24













          9












          9








          9





          $begingroup$

          The code itself is rather clear. There are some smaller changes I would make



          tuple unpacking



          You can use tuple unpacking to do:



          for code, *_ in ndiff(str1, str2):


          instead of:



          for x in ndiff(str_1, str_2):
          code = x[0]


          dict results:



          Instead of a counter for the additions and removals, I would keep it in 1 dict: counter = ("+": 0, "-": 0)



          def levenshtein_distance(str1, str2, ):
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          distance = 0
          for edit_code, *_ in ndiff(str1, str2):
          if edit_code == " ":
          distance += max(counter.values())
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          else:
          counter[edit_code] += 1
          distance += max(counter.values())
          return distance


          generators



          A smaller, less useful variation, is to let this method be a generator, and use the builtin sum to do the summary. this saves 1 variable inside the function:



          def levenshtein_distance_gen(str1, str2, ):
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          for edit_code, *_ in ndiff(str1, str2):
          if edit_code == " ":
          yield max(counter.values())
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          else:
          counter[edit_code] += 1
          yield max(counter.values())

          sum(levenshtein_distance_gen(str1, str2))



          timings



          The differences in timings between the original and both these variations are minimal, and within the variation of results. This is rather logical, since for simple strings (aaabbbc and abcabcabc) 90% of the time is spent in ndiff






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          The code itself is rather clear. There are some smaller changes I would make



          tuple unpacking



          You can use tuple unpacking to do:



          for code, *_ in ndiff(str1, str2):


          instead of:



          for x in ndiff(str_1, str_2):
          code = x[0]


          dict results:



          Instead of a counter for the additions and removals, I would keep it in 1 dict: counter = ("+": 0, "-": 0)



          def levenshtein_distance(str1, str2, ):
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          distance = 0
          for edit_code, *_ in ndiff(str1, str2):
          if edit_code == " ":
          distance += max(counter.values())
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          else:
          counter[edit_code] += 1
          distance += max(counter.values())
          return distance


          generators



          A smaller, less useful variation, is to let this method be a generator, and use the builtin sum to do the summary. this saves 1 variable inside the function:



          def levenshtein_distance_gen(str1, str2, ):
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          for edit_code, *_ in ndiff(str1, str2):
          if edit_code == " ":
          yield max(counter.values())
          counter = "+": 0, "-": 0
          else:
          counter[edit_code] += 1
          yield max(counter.values())

          sum(levenshtein_distance_gen(str1, str2))



          timings



          The differences in timings between the original and both these variations are minimal, and within the variation of results. This is rather logical, since for simple strings (aaabbbc and abcabcabc) 90% of the time is spent in ndiff







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Apr 8 at 13:51









          Maarten FabréMaarten Fabré

          5,259517




          5,259517











          • $begingroup$
            Awesome suggestions. I had not even considered the generator approach, but it looks very nice. Thanks
            $endgroup$
            – Kyra_W
            Apr 9 at 8:24
















          • $begingroup$
            Awesome suggestions. I had not even considered the generator approach, but it looks very nice. Thanks
            $endgroup$
            – Kyra_W
            Apr 9 at 8:24















          $begingroup$
          Awesome suggestions. I had not even considered the generator approach, but it looks very nice. Thanks
          $endgroup$
          – Kyra_W
          Apr 9 at 8:24




          $begingroup$
          Awesome suggestions. I had not even considered the generator approach, but it looks very nice. Thanks
          $endgroup$
          – Kyra_W
          Apr 9 at 8:24










          Kyra_W is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          Kyra_W is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












          Kyra_W is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











          Kyra_W is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














          Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f217065%2fcalculate-levenshtein-distance-between-two-strings-in-python%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          What does it mean to find percent difference when two values are equivalent? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhat does “percent of change” mean?Find what percent X is between two numbers?Unable to determine 'original amount' in simple percentage problemsWhat is the correct percent difference formula?How does proportionality hold when quantities are high? And the percentage increase formulaprofit and loss GRE questionProfitability calculationWhat is the difference between $xtimes 0.8$ and $x div 1.2 ? $Finding the percent probability of completing BUDs trainingCalculating Percent Difference with zero and near zero values

          Why did some early computer designers eschew integers?What register size did early computers use?What other computers used this floating-point format?Why did so many early microcomputers use the MOS 6502 and variants?Why were early computers named “Mark”?Why did expert systems fall?Why were early personal computer monitors not green?When did “Zen” in computer programming become a thing?History of advanced hardwareWere there any working computers using residue number systems?Why did some CPUs use two Read/Write lines, and others just one?

          How to avoid repetitive long generic constraints in Rust The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) The Ask Question Wizard is Live! Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experienceIs it possible to automatically implement a trait for any tuple that is made up of types that all implement the trait?Is there a constraint that restricts my generic method to numeric types?How can foreign key constraints be temporarily disabled using T-SQL?How do I use reflection to call a generic method?How to create a generic array in Java?How to get a class instance of generics type THow is `last` allowed to be called for an Args value?How to implement a trait for a parameterized traitAvoiding PhantomData in a struct to enforce type constraintsIs it possible to return part of a struct by reference?Associated References types as Value Types