How to correct the user input (Kind of google “did you mean?”)

Question

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.

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

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.

Answer 6

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.

Answer 7

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).

Answer 8

You have two possible issues that you need to address (or not address if you so choose)

1. Users mistyping a word (an edit distance algorithm)
2. 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.