Calculate Levenshtein distance between two strings in PythonEdit 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

You look catfish vs You look like a catfish

Why does the Betti number give the measure of k-dimensional holes?

Will tsunami waves travel forever if there was no land?

Can a creature tell when it has been affected by a Divination wizard's Portent?

When to use 1/Ka vs Kb

Is creating your own "experiment" considered cheating during a physics exam?

Does jamais mean always or never in this context?

What is the difference between `a[bc]d` (brackets) and `ab,cd` (braces)?

If Earth is tilted, why is Polaris always above the same spot?

Asahi Dry Black beer can

"ne paelici suspectaretur" (Tacitus)

Why do computer-science majors learn calculus?

Given what happens in Endgame, why doesn't Dormammu come back to attack the universe?

What is the strongest case that can be made in favour of the UK regaining some control over fishing policy after Brexit?

How to back up a running remote server?

What does YCWCYODFTRFDTY mean?

What word means to make something obsolete?

Pulling the rope with one hand is as heavy as with two hands?

A non-technological, repeating, visible object in the sky, holding its position in the sky for hours

Does a creature that is immune to a condition still make a saving throw?

How to create an ad-hoc wireless network in Ubuntu

Single Colour Mastermind Problem

Weird result in complex limit

Reverse the word in a string with the same order in javascript



Calculate Levenshtein distance between two strings in Python


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











$endgroup$


















    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











    $endgroup$














      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











      $endgroup$




      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















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Apr 8 at 19:14









      Reinderien

      5,578928




      5,578928










      asked Apr 8 at 10:01









      Kyra_WKyra_W

      585




      585




















          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
          );



          );













          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

          27.8k54499




          27.8k54499







          • 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

          5,474719




          5,474719











          • $begingroup$
            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

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          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

          Adding axes to figuresAdding axes labels to LaTeX figuresLaTeX equivalent of ConTeXt buffersRotate a node but not its content: the case of the ellipse decorationHow to define the default vertical distance between nodes?TikZ scaling graphic and adjust node position and keep font sizeNumerical conditional within tikz keys?adding axes to shapesAlign axes across subfiguresAdding figures with a certain orderLine up nested tikz enviroments or how to get rid of themAdding axes labels to LaTeX figures

          Luettelo Yhdysvaltain laivaston lentotukialuksista Lähteet | Navigointivalikko

          Gary (muusikko) Sisällysluettelo Historia | Rockin' High | Lähteet | Aiheesta muualla | NavigointivalikkoInfobox OKTuomas "Gary" Keskinen Ancaran kitaristiksiProjekti Rockin' High