Andres Freund-3 wrote > I think something simplistic like levenshtein, even with modified > distances, is good to catch typos. But not to find terms that are > related in more complex ways.
Tom Lane-2 wrote > The big picture is that this is more or less our first venture into > heuristic suggestions. I think we should start slow with a very > conservative set of heuristics. If it's a success maybe we can get more > aggressive over time --- but if we go over the top here, the entire > concept will be discredited in this community for the next ten years. +1 for both of these conclusions. The observations regarding standard column prefixes and thinking that abbreviations are in use when in fact the names are spelled out are indeed in-the-wild behaviors that should be considered but a levenshtein distance algorithm is likely not going to be useful in pointing out mistakes in those situations. Limiting the immediate focus to "fat/thin-fingering of keys" - for which levenshtein is well suited - is useful and will provide data points that can then guide future artificial intelligence endeavors. David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/Doing-better-at-HINTing-an-appropriate-column-within-errorMissingColumn-tp5797700p5827786.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
