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;
$begingroup$
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?
python edit-distance
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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?
python edit-distance
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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?
python edit-distance
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
python edit-distance
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.
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.
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
"""
...
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Awesome suggestions. I had not even considered the generator approach, but it looks very nice. Thanks
$endgroup$
– Kyra_W
Apr 9 at 8:24
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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.
"""
...
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
"""
...
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
"""
...
$endgroup$
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.
"""
...
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Awesome suggestions. I had not even considered the generator approach, but it looks very nice. Thanks
$endgroup$
– Kyra_W
Apr 9 at 8:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Awesome suggestions. I had not even considered the generator approach, but it looks very nice. Thanks
$endgroup$
– Kyra_W
Apr 9 at 8:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
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
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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