in reply to Comparing array contents to DB contents

What would happen if on a per record basis you concatenate all fields in the Database and do the same for the fields in your table and then compare both strings against each other?

I may have missed something, though. Why are you using the String::Approx module?

CountZero

"If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler." - Conway's Law

Update: Changed "String::Compare" to "String::Approx"
  • Comment on Re: Comparing array contents to DB contents

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Comparing array contents to DB contents
by castaway (Parson) on Jan 30, 2003 at 12:04 UTC
    Hmm, might be an idea..
    I'm using it because I'm trying to clean up the data as I go.. theres quite a big possibility of similar names being written differently/mistyped (eg 'MudOS', 'MudOD', 'Mudos' are probably all the same thing.)

    Though I've not figured out yet how tolerant it is, this is just playing around at the mo..

    C.

[reply]

      If it is just a matter of UPPERCASE v. lowercase, you can force both strings to lowercase and then do the comparison.

      Did you already have a look at Array::Compare? Incidentally, the simple compare method also uses "my" concatenation trick.

      Having had a quick peek at String::Approx I think it can be used with this concatenation trick: rather than test on eq you test on adist or adistr and see if both strings are sufficiently equal to be accepted as such or must be checked further.

      String::Similarity might also be a good candidate: it seems simpler than String::Approx.

      CountZero

      "If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler." - Conway's Law

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom