Calculate Levenshtein distance between two strings in Python





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







10












$begingroup$


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









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.







$endgroup$



















    10












    $begingroup$


    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









    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.







    $endgroup$















      10












      10








      10


      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









      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






      share|improve this question









      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.











      share|improve this question









      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.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited yesterday









      Reinderien

      5,345927




      5,345927






      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 yesterday









      Kyra_WKyra_W

      535




      535




      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.






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          13












          $begingroup$

          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
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            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
            23 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks! I did not know of this module. Will check it out
            $endgroup$
            – Kyra_W
            15 hours ago






          • 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
            15 hours ago





















          8












          $begingroup$

          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
            15 hours ago












          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          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.










          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









          13












          $begingroup$

          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
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            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
            23 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks! I did not know of this module. Will check it out
            $endgroup$
            – Kyra_W
            15 hours ago






          • 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
            15 hours ago


















          13












          $begingroup$

          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
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            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
            23 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks! I did not know of this module. Will check it out
            $endgroup$
            – Kyra_W
            15 hours ago






          • 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
            15 hours ago
















          13












          13








          13





          $begingroup$

          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 yesterday

























          answered yesterday









          GraipherGraipher

          27k54497




          27k54497








          • 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
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            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
            23 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks! I did not know of this module. Will check it out
            $endgroup$
            – Kyra_W
            15 hours ago






          • 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
            15 hours ago
















          • 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
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            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
            23 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks! I did not know of this module. Will check it out
            $endgroup$
            – Kyra_W
            15 hours ago






          • 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
            15 hours ago










          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
          yesterday




          $begingroup$
          Just to note the module is licensed under GPL 2.0 so watch out if you're using it for work.
          $endgroup$
          – lucasgcb
          yesterday












          $begingroup$
          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
          23 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          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
          23 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          Thanks! I did not know of this module. Will check it out
          $endgroup$
          – Kyra_W
          15 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Thanks! I did not know of this module. Will check it out
          $endgroup$
          – Kyra_W
          15 hours ago




          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
          15 hours ago






          $begingroup$
          @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
          15 hours ago















          8












          $begingroup$

          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
            15 hours ago
















          8












          $begingroup$

          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
            15 hours ago














          8












          8








          8





          $begingroup$

          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 yesterday









          Maarten FabréMaarten Fabré

          5,169517




          5,169517












          • $begingroup$
            Awesome suggestions. I had not even considered the generator approach, but it looks very nice. Thanks
            $endgroup$
            – Kyra_W
            15 hours ago


















          • $begingroup$
            Awesome suggestions. I had not even considered the generator approach, but it looks very nice. Thanks
            $endgroup$
            – Kyra_W
            15 hours ago
















          $begingroup$
          Awesome suggestions. I had not even considered the generator approach, but it looks very nice. Thanks
          $endgroup$
          – Kyra_W
          15 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Awesome suggestions. I had not even considered the generator approach, but it looks very nice. Thanks
          $endgroup$
          – Kyra_W
          15 hours ago










          Kyra_W is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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.




          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

          Bruad Bilen | Luke uk diar | NawigatsjuunCommonskategorii: BruadCommonskategorii: RunstükenWikiquote: Bruad

          What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?

          Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029