I have a business requirement where we need to do somce crazy name matching against records stored in the database and I was wondering if there is any easy way to do it using SQL Server.
Name Stored in the DB : Austin K
Name to be Matched from UI : Austin Kierland
That's just a sample. In reality, there could be whole lot of different permutations and combinations.
If it's other way round, I could've used wild character but in this case, the name in the database is smaller than the search criteria.
Any suggestions?
Realistically - no. Databases were meant for comparing absolute values, not for messy comparisons. The way they store their data internally just isn't fit for really messy matching. Actually even a superpowerful dedicated search engine like Google, that has a LOT of messy matching features, wouldn't be able to pull off your example without prior knowledge.
I don't know how the requirement is precisely worded, but I'd either shoot the feature request with "technically impossible", or implement a rule set for which messy matches are tried - for your example, you could easily 'hard code' that multiple searches are executed when capitalized words are entered, shortening them so a single letter. No idea if that's a solution to your problem though.
You can do a normal search using the LIKE operator which determines whether a specific character string matches a specified pattern. The problem you will run into is the probability of the returning of multiple records or incorrect people. I've had similar requirement myself for a business app and the best solution to the issue is to require other qualifying values rather then just name. If you do a partial name search without other qualifying data you are certainly going to come across the false positive matches and/or multiple records. In my case I built a web service that checks eligibility allowing text search for first & last name but also added date of birth, primary person SSN, and gender which ensured the matching person was in deed the person intended to search for. If my situation was like yours in which name was the only search criteria my recommendation to the business would be we cannot perform the search until qualifying data is entered into the database otherwise there is no accurate way to query the results they are looking for.
Related
I'm creating a self-help FAQ type application and one of the requirements is that the end user has to be able to search for FAQ topics. I have three models of note, listed below with their relevant (i.e. searchable) columns:
Topic: Name, Description
Question: Name, Answer
Problem: Name, Solution
All three tables are linked to Topic via a TopicID column. The idea is to provide a single textbox where the user can enter a search query, something either as a sentence (e.g. "How do I perform X") or a phrase (e.g. "Performing X" or "Perform X"), and provide all Topics/Questions/Problems that have any of the words they entered in either the name or description/answer/solution fields; the model will only ever have those columns searchable and I don't have to worry about filtering out the common words like "How" and such (It would be nice but isn't a requirement as it's not an exact match but a fuzzy match).
For reasons outside of my control, I have to use a Stored Procedure. My question is what would be the most appropriate way to handle a search like this; I've seen similar questions regarding multiple columns but really there is not a variable number of columns, there are always two columns per table that are actually searchable. The issue is that the search query could, in theory, be nearly anything - a sentence, a phrase, a comma-separated list of terms (e.g. "x,y,z"), so I would have to split the search term into components (e.g. split on whitespace) and then search each pair of columns for every term? Is that reasonably easy to do in SQL Server? The alternative, a little messier, is to just pull all the data back and then split the query and filter the results in the server-side code as there shouldn't ever be that many items entered, but I would feel a little dirty doing something like that ;-)
Suggest creating a new Full Text Catalog, and assign the table and columns to that catalog. Ensure your catalog is being updated at the right frequency for your needs.
You can then query this catalog using the FREETEXT predicate. It sounds like you need to match on those suffixes like 'ing', so suggest FREETEXT over CONTAINS in this case.
You can use a variable in this search, so it'll be easy to fit into a stored proc.
declare #token varchar(256);
select #token = 'perform';
select * from Problem
where freetext(Name, #token)
or freetext(Solution, #token);
--this will match 'perform' and 'performing'
I am using qodbc (a quickbooks database connector) It uses an ODBC-like sql language.
I would like to find all the records where a field matches a pattern but I have a slight delema.
The information in my field looks like this:
321-......02/25/10
321-1.....02/26/10
321-2.....03/25/10
321-3.....03/26/10
322-......04/25/10
322-1.....04/26/10
322-2.....05/25/10
322-3.....05/26/10
I would like my query to return only the rows where the pattern matches the first number. So if the user searches for '321' it will only show records that look like 321 but not those that have 321-1 or 321-3. Similarly if the user searched for 321-1 you would not see 321. (that's the easy part)
Right now I have
LIKE '321%'
This finds all of them regardless of if they are followed by dots or not. Is there a way I can limit the query to only specifics despite that field having more information that it should.
(P.S. I did not set up this system, it makes me wince to see two data points in one field
I'm sorry if my title isn't right, suggest a new title if you can. )
LIKE '321%' AND NOT LIKE '321-%'
I have a large number of phrases (~ several million), each less than six or seven words and the large majority less than five, and I would like to see if they "phrase match" each other. This is a search engine marketing term - essentially, A phrase matches B if A is contained in B. Right now, they are stored in a db (postgres), and I am performing a join on regexes (see this question). It is running impossibly slowly even after trying all basic optimization tricks (indexing, etc) and trying the suggestions provided.
Is there an easier way to do this? I am not averse to a non-DB solution. Is there any reason to think that regexes are overkill and are taking way longer than a different solution?
An ideal algorithm for doing sub-string matching is AhoCorsick.
Although you will have to read the data out of the database to use it, it is tremendously fast, when compared to more naive methods.
See here for a related question on substring matching:
And here for an AhoCorsick implementation in Java:
It would be great to get a little more context as to why you need to see which phrases are subsets of others: for example, it seems strange that the DB would be built in such a way anyway: you're having to do the work now because the DB is not in an appropriate format, so it makes sense that you should 'fix' the DB or the way in which it is built, instead.
It depends massively on what you are doing with the data and why, but I have found it useful in the past to break things down into single words and pairs of words, then link resources or phrases to those singles/pairs.
For example to implement a search I have done:
Source text: Testing phrases to see
Entries:
testing
testing phrases
phrases
phrases to
to
to see
see
To see if another phrase was similar (granted, not contained within) you would break down the other phrase in the same way and count the number of phrases common between them.
It has the nice side effect of still matching if you were to use (for example) "see phases to testing": because the individual words would match.. but because the order is different the pairs wouldn't, so it's taking phrases (consecutive words) into account at the same time, the number of matches wouldn't be as high, good for use as a 'score' in matching.
As I say that -kind- of thing has worked for me, but it would be great to hear some more background/context, so we can see if we can find a better solution.
When you have the 'cleaned column' from MaasSQL's previous answer, you could, depending on the way "phrase match" works exactly (I don't know), sort this column based on the length of the containing string.
Then make sure you run the comparison query in a converging manner in a procedure instead of a flat query, by stepping through your table (with a cursor) and eliminating candidates for comparison through WHERE statements and through deleting candidates that have already been tested (completely). You may need a temporary table to do this.
What do I mean with 'WHERE' statement previously? Well, if the comparison value is in a column sorted on length, you'll never have to test whether a longer string matches inside a shorter string.
And with deleting candidates: starting with the shortest strings, once you've tested all strings of a certain length, you'll can remove them from the comparison table, as any next test you'll do will never get a match.
Of course, this requires a bit more programming than just one SQL statement. And is dependent on the way "phrase match" works exactly.
DTS or SSIS may be your friend here as well.
I am trying to determine what the best way is to find variations of a first name in a database. For example, I search for Bill Smith. I would like it return "Bill Smith", obviously, but I would also like it to return "William Smith", or "Billy Smith", or even "Willy Smith". My initial thought was to build a first name hierarchy, but I do not know where I could obtain such data, if it even exists.
Since users can search the directory, I thought this would be a key feature. For example, people I went to school with called me Joe, but I always go by Joseph now. So, I was looking at doing a phonetic search on the last name, either with NYSIIS or Double Metaphone and then searching on the first name using this name heirarchy. Is there a better way to do this - maybe some sort of graded relevance using a full text search on the full name instead of a two part search on the first and last name? Part of me thinks that if I stored a name as a single value instead of multiple values, it might facilitate more search options at the expense of being able to address a user by the first name.
As far as platform, I am using SQL Server 2005 - however, I don't have a problem shifting some of the matching into the code; for example, pre-seeding the phonetic keys for a user, since they wouldn't change.
Any thoughts or guidance would be appreciated. Countless searches have pretty much turned up empty. Thanks!
Edit: It seems that there are two very distinct camps on the functionality and I am definitely sitting in the middle right now. I could see the argument of a full-text search - most likely done with a lack of data normalization, and a multi-part approach that uses different criteria for different parts of the name.
The problem ultimately comes down to user intent. The Bill / William example is a good one, because it shows the mutation of a first name based upon the formality of the usage. I think that building a name hierarchy is the more accurate (and extensible) solution, but is going to be far more complex. The fuzzy search approach is easier to implement at the expense of accuracy. Is this a fair comparison?
Resolution: Upon doing some tests, I have determined to go with an approach where the initial registration will take a full name and I will split it out into multiple fields (forename, surname, middle, suffix, etc.). Since I am sure that it won't be perfect, I will allow the user to edit the "parts", including adding a maiden or alternate name. As far as searching goes, with either solution I am going to need to maintain what variations exists, either in a database table, or as a thesaurus. Neither have an advantage over the other in this case. I think it is going to come down to performance, and I will have to actually run some benchmarks to determine which is best. Thank you, everyone, for your input!
In my opinion you should either do a feature right and make it complete, or you should leave it off to avoid building a half-assed intelligence into a computer program that still gets it wrong most of the time ("Looks like you're writing a letter", anyone?).
In case of human names, a computer will get it wrong most of the time, doing it right and complete is impossible, IMHO. Maybe you can hack something that does the most common English names. But actually, the intelligence to look for both "Bill" and "William" is built into almost any English speaking person - I would leave it to them to connect the dots.
The term you are looking for is Hypocorism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocorism
And Wikipedia lists many of them. You could bang out some Python or Perl to scrape that page and put it in a db.
I would go with a structure like this:
create table given_names (
id int primary key,
name text not null unique
);
create table hypocorisms (
id int references given_names(id),
name text not null,
primary key (id, name)
);
insert into given_names values (1, 'William');
insert into hypocorisms values (1, 'Bill');
insert into hypocorisms values (1, 'Billy');
Then you could write a function/sproc to normalize a name:
normalize_given_name('Bill'); --returns William
One issue you will face is that different names can have the same hypocorism (Albert -> Al, Alan -> Al)
I think your basic approach is solid. I don't think fulltext is going to help you. For seeding, behindthename.com seems to have large amount of the data you want.
Are you using SQl Server 2005 Express with Advanced Services as to me it sounds you would benefit from the Full Text indexing and more specifically Contains and Containstable which you can use with specific instructions here is a link for the uses of Containstable:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189760.aspx
and here is the download link for SQL Server 2005 With Advanced Services:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=4C6BA9FD-319A-4887-BC75-3B02B5E48A40&displaylang=en
Hope this helps,
Andrew
You can use the SQL Server Full Text Search and do an inflectional search.
Basically like:
SELECT ProductId, ProductName
FROM ProductModel
WHERE CONTAINS(CatalogDescription, ' FORMSOF(THESAURUS, metal) ')
Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_Server_Full_Text_Search#Inflectional_Searches
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345119.aspx
http://www.mssqltips.com/tip.asp?tip=1491
Not sure what your application is, but if your users know at the time of sign up that people from their past might be searching the database for them, you could offer them the chance in the user profile to define other names they might be known as (including last names, women change these all the time and makes finding them much harder!) and that they want people to be able to search on. Store these in a separate related table. Then search on that. Just make the structure such that you can define one name as the main name (the one you use for everything except the search.)
You'll find that you're dabbling in an area known as "Natural Language Processing" and you'll need to do several things, most of which can be found under the topic of stemming.
Simplistic stemming simply breaks the word apart, but more advanced algorithms associate words that mean the same thing - for instance Google might use stemming to convert "cat" and "kitten" to "feline" and search for all three, weighing the actual word provided by the user as slightly heavier so exact matches return before stemmed matches.
It's a known problem, and there are open source stemmers available.
-Adam
No, Full Text searches will not help to solve your problem.
I think you might want to take a look at some of the following links: (Funny, no one mentioned SoundEx till now)
SoundEx - MSDN
SoundEx - Google results
InformIT - Tolerant Search algorithms
Basically SoundEx allows you to evaluate the level of similarity in similar sounding words. The function is also available on SQL 2005.
As a side issue, instead of returning similar results, it might prove more intuitive to the user to use a AJAX based script to deliver similar sounding names before the user initiates his/her search. That way you can show the user "similar names" or "did you mean..." kind of data.
Here's an idea for automatically finding "name synonyms" like Bill/William. That problem has been studied in the broader context of synonyms in general: inducing them from statistics of which words commonly appear in the same contexts in a large text corpus like the Web. You could try combining that approach with a list of names like Moby Names; I don't know if it's been done before.
Here are some pointers.
I'm looking for a pattern for performing a dynamic search on multiple tables.
I have no control over the legacy (and poorly designed) database table structure.
Consider a scenario similar to a resume search where a user may want to perform a search against any of the data in the resume and get back a list of resumes that match their search criteria. Any field can be searched at anytime and in combination with one or more other fields.
The actual sql query gets created dynamically depending on which fields are searched. Most solutions I've found involve complicated if blocks, but I can't help but think there must be a more elegant solution since this must be a solved problem by now.
Yeah, so I've started down the path of dynamically building the sql in code. Seems godawful. If I really try to support the requested ability to query any combination of any field in any table this is going to be one MASSIVE set of if statements. shiver
I believe I read that COALESCE only works if your data does not contain NULLs. Is that correct? If so, no go, since I have NULL values all over the place.
As far as I understand (and I'm also someone who has written against a horrible legacy database), there is no such thing as dynamic WHERE clauses. It has NOT been solved.
Personally, I prefer to generate my dynamic searches in code. Makes testing convenient. Note, when you create your sql queries in code, don't concatenate in user input. Use your #variables!
The only alternative is to use the COALESCE operator. Let's say you have the following table:
Users
-----------
Name nvarchar(20)
Nickname nvarchar(10)
and you want to search optionally for name or nickname. The following query will do this:
SELECT Name, Nickname
FROM Users
WHERE
Name = COALESCE(#name, Name) AND
Nickname = COALESCE(#nick, Nickname)
If you don't want to search for something, just pass in a null. For example, passing in "brian" for #name and null for #nick results in the following query being evaluated:
SELECT Name, Nickname
FROM Users
WHERE
Name = 'brian' AND
Nickname = Nickname
The coalesce operator turns the null into an identity evaluation, which is always true and doesn't affect the where clause.
Search and normalization can be at odds with each other. So probably first thing would be to get some kind of "view" that shows all the fields that can be searched as a single row with a single key getting you the resume. then you can throw something like Lucene in front of that to give you a full text index of those rows, the way that works is, you ask it for "x" in this view and it returns to you the key. Its a great solution and come recommended by joel himself on the podcast within the first 2 months IIRC.
What you need is something like SphinxSearch (for MySQL) or Apache Lucene.
As you said in your example lets imagine a Resume that will composed of several fields:
List item
Name,
Adreess,
Education (this could be a table on its own) or
Work experience (this could grow to its own table where each row represents a previous job)
So searching for a word in all those fields with WHERE rapidly becomes a very long query with several JOINS.
Instead you could change your framework of reference and think of the Whole resume as what it is a Single Document and you just want to search said document.
This is where tools like Sphinx Search do. They create a FULL TEXT index of your 'document' and then you can query sphinx and it will give you back where in the Database that record was found.
Really good search results.
Don't worry about this tools not being part of your RDBMS it will save you a lot of headaches to use the appropriate model "Documents" vs the incorrect one "TABLES" for this application.