Updated: Comment #142


Search is working, but I noticed that it doesn't pick up on partial words. For example, if you search on 'quake' you would expect to get back results containing the term 'earthquakes' but there are no results.

This behavior is also the case with plurals: Searching on 'engineer' when a node only includes 'engineers' will not return that node in the results. It is pretty standard searching behaviour for people to omit plurals and expect to see them in results. For example, searching on 'engineer' should return:


Proposed resolution

Implement N-Gram searches, see comment #56

Remaining tasks

Decide if this belongs in core or contrib, see comments #81 and #93

User interface changes


API changes


#141 drupal6-search-allow_select_condition_type.patch4.25 KBJenechka
#140 search.module-6.26.patch2.69 KBwsherliker
#109 search.module-6.15.patch2.42 KBSepehrLajevardi
FAILED: [[SimpleTest]]: [MySQL] Unable to apply patch search.module-6.15.patch. View
#111 search.module-6.16.patch2.25 KBSchnWalter
FAILED: [[SimpleTest]]: [MySQL] Unable to apply patch search.module-6.16.patch. Unable to apply patch. See the log in the details link for more information. View
#107 changed_lines.txt1.57 KBroberto.scaccaglia
#91 n_gram.patch4.3 KBScott Reynolds
Failed: Failed to install HEAD. View
#89 search_gram.patch5.35 KBScott Reynolds
Repository checkout: failed to checkout from [:pserver:anonymous:anonymous@cvs.drupal.org:/cvs/drupal/drupal]. View
#88 n_gram.patch5.35 KBScott Reynolds
Failed: Failed to apply patch. View
#74 search-n.patch5.99 KBScott Reynolds
Failed: Failed to apply patch. View
#74 search_highlight.jpeg233.61 KBScott Reynolds
#61 search_gram.zip3.61 KBScott Reynolds
#59 search-ab.txt3.05 KBScott Reynolds
#58 search-3-gram.jpeg58.07 KBScott Reynolds
#58 search-no-gram.jpeg50.69 KBScott Reynolds
#57 search-n.patch4.63 KBScott Reynolds
Failed: Failed to apply patch. View
#50 partial_word_search_6_6.patch1.59 KBisidoromendez
Failed: Failed to apply patch. View
#42 partial_word_search_6_2.patch1.26 KBFrank Steiner
Repository checkout: failed to checkout from [:pserver:anonymous:anonymous@cvs.drupal.org:/cvs/drupal/drupal]. View
#4 search.module_10.patch726 bytesaugustd
FAILED: [[SimpleTest]]: [MySQL] Invalid patch format in search.module_10.patch. View
search.module_9.patch355 bytesaugustd
FAILED: [[SimpleTest]]: [MySQL] Invalid patch format in search.module_9.patch. View
Members fund testing for the Drupal project. Drupal Association Learn more


pwolanin’s picture

see the porter-stemmer module

pwolanin’s picture

Version: 4.7.4 » 6.x-dev
Category: bug » feature
Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Needs work

Also, a "feature" of the Drupal development cycle is that new features are only considered for the latest version in development.

pwolanin’s picture

Also, please supply patches in unified diff format, and it's considered bad form to RTBC your own patch. It needs to be reviewd by others. See: http://drupal.org/patch

augustd’s picture

726 bytes
FAILED: [[SimpleTest]]: [MySQL] Invalid patch format in search.module_10.patch. View

Porter-Stemmer works for engineer->engineers, but not for quake->earthquake.

Attached is a unified diff of the same code.

pwolanin’s picture

I agree with you that this would be a nice feature, but the key question that will be asked by the people who might actually accept this change is the relative speed/efficiency of this query compared to the existing query.

RobRoy’s picture

This is something I brought up a while back (in some issue I can't find) and was told that partial matching was too db-intensive. But, for 6.x I think we need to incorporate this. Most users expect partial matching to work. Sure, that's a blanket statement, but IMO it's valid. Ironically enough, I was searching for porter-stemmer module and searches for "porter stemmer", "porter", and "stemmer" all came up false for the project page. Only "porter-stemmer" brought it up. It seems we are expecting that searchers know almost exactly what they are searching for when that is main reason one searches in the first place. :)

What is a practical and feasible way to improve partial matching without sacrificing performance? Should we have an option in search settings to turn on partial-word matching?

spjsche’s picture

Another point to note is that the search module does not perform searches within revisions.

jmanico’s picture

It's heartbreaking that we need to wait until 6 for this basic feature that most users expect to see. Is drupal going to be a blogging engine or a enterprise ready system?

Might I suggest we roll this key feature into 4.7 but add a switch so the admin can turn this feature on-or-off if performance is a problem? Good job, augustd for bringing this up.

pwolanin’s picture

Such a thing can be added to any version as a contributed module - take the current search module and tweak it and offer it as an alternative.

augustd’s picture

I'd like to avoid fragmenting the code base as much as possible. Besides if I was going to offer a separate search module I would rather create one to take advantage of MySQL FULLTEXT searching using MATCH ... AGAINST:


What I'm offering here is just a quick fix. How hard is it to roll this into the source tree? I can make the partial word feature an option if needed.

RobRoy’s picture

I'm pretty sure the only way it will get considered for core is if it's an option, defaulting to whole word matching. The setting could go under the Performance section. I'd say go ahead and roll a patch with a setting so it can get some reviews.

Steven’s picture

Wildcard matching destroys the efficiency of the search index.

Is drupal going to be a blogging engine or a enterprise ready system?

Have you asked Google when they are going to implement wildcard searching?

RobRoy’s picture

So if we are to not enable wildcard matching (even as an option), we would need to make improvements to the indexer, correct? So we could match quake to earthquake, develop to development, etc. That's probably a pretty gnarly task, no?

Steven’s picture

Status: Needs work » Active

Not really. All you need is a synonym list. You can solve this problem two ways:
- When searching replace a word by 'word OR synonym OR synonym'
- When indexing, replace a word by 'word synonym synonym'

The first is more exact, the second is probably faster (but does not behave well for e.g. phrase searches).

By the way, I just checked out MySQL FULLTEXT in more detail, and as far as I can tell it has no generic substring matching either.

The only thing we can do (and which MySQL FULLTEXT does) is to support wildcards of the form foo* where the beginning is fixed. These queries still use indexes to some degree. However, the shorter the fixed string, the slower it will be.

However, when I did the 4.7 search module update, I thought that such wildcards would not be very useful and better replaced by stemming. Stemming also has loads of other benefits, hence the decision was made to simplify the code and remove wildcards altogether. So far, nothing has really happened to change that decision.

Note that all of the existing search code is aimed at making word searches efficient. If you simply replace the matches by wildcard matches, the result will be incredibly slow because table indices can no longer be used. This is what the proposed patch does.

What you should do is skip the entire first pass of the search in (which was changed into a full table scan by this patch) and simply do a full table scan in the second pass in do_search(). However, then you might have trouble getting a good ranking going (as it is based on the search_index table).

Again, I doubt the usefulness of this feature. It is not easy to implement, it is slow and causes additional complications (ranking).

RobRoy’s picture

I was imagining some type of synonym list, just thought that might be intense to implement. So in terms of synonym list functionality the first option you mentioned is the way you'd want to go with this? This means a user searches for 'develop', and then we expand that to 'developer OR development OR ...'? In terms of translation, I guess we'd check any searches against the current locale's synonym table. I'm not super savvy on the translator end so maybe we could flesh that out a bit. I think this is an important improvement to the search module and would like to get some ideas rolling.

And for MySQL, if we used FULLTEXT we can get wildcard matching so we could even require at least 3 character root. Anyone comment on a comparable PGSQL solution?

@Steven, do you see both these as being core-worthy?

augustd’s picture

Postgres has a contributed module called TSearch2 that does full text searching.

nedjo’s picture

The contrib sql search/trip_search module uses MySQL full text indices, http://drupal.org/project/trip_search.

ray007’s picture

Partial word search is really something that should be supported nowadays.

joep.hendrix’s picture

Title: Implement partial word or wildcard searches » Search on partial words does not work
Version: 7.x-dev » 6.x-dev

+1 from me.

Please take the following into consideration as well.

There are languages (Dutch and German for example) where the English version of a phrase would be seperate words, the word in these languages would be one long single word.

For example:
The phrase "department secretary" would be in Dutch and German "departmentsecretary" (one long word).

If one would search on department in Dutch or German, the word departmentsecretary would not be found.
If one would search on secretary in Dutch or German, the word departmentsecretary would not be found.

Partial search is very much needed in these languages!!!

JirkaRybka’s picture

Feedback from east Europe: Our languages (my native Czech, but also Slovak, Polish, Russian and many more) build words on a prefix+base+suffix principle, so if going in the "synonyms list" way, we would need about 10 synonyms for almost every single word in the language! For example "Engineer", depending on gender, amount and context, may in Czech become Inženýr Inženýra Inženýrovi Inženýre Inženýrem Inženýři Inženýrů Inženýrům Inženýry Inženýrech Inženýrka Inženýrku Inženýrce Inženýrko Inženýrkou Inženýrky Inženýrek Inženýrkám Inženýrkách Inženýrkami - and it's just one word, far from being extra complicated. Currently, the search in Drupal simply *doesn't work* in my language - the search box in fact requires to know full context where the word is used, to write a correctly-formed question. I'm even unable to find my own posts. No searching user thinks of all the possible variations. The common way across the web here is to specify basic form of the term (without pre-/suffixes), and expect all the results to show. As for synonyms list - I think it's no good: I can't imagine a translator person able to give correctly all the possible variations, and even then, special terms, colloquials and such won't work.

So I strongly recommend to include partial string matching. Might be configurable to use it or not, but without this feature, Drupal's search is unusable for half the Europe, I believe.

puchal’s picture

I second that. In Polish i.e. verb "to drive" (jechać) depending on the direction and form of movement can take forms like: dojechać, przyjechać, odjechać, wyjechać, zajechać, najechać, podjechać, nadjechać etc. Also the end of the verb gets modified depending on gender, tense and quantity. Each of above forms can take shape of i.e.: przyjechał, przyjechała, przyjechało, przyjechaliśmy, przyjechaliście, przyjechali etc. etc.

There are several methods of code optimizing. One of them is "Add more RAM, faster disk and more processors" :-). I think many would cope with performance issues as long as we'd have a partial word search capability.

jsmithx70’s picture

Version: 6.x-dev » 5.x-dev

Is there any solution to be able to create search in 5.x of drupal.
so i can type things like this on the search box :
"george w"

and I'd like to have results like these:

"george w. bush"
"george washington"
"george wanders"
everything with the W, because right now it just does a word by word search and doesnt include the W (like with a wildcard).
It would rock

that's what I need.

I'm urgently needing it and I don't know how to do it. . . with Drupal 5.x
The porter-stemmer is not working for me as I'd like...

jsmithx70’s picture

I'm basically using

Drupal Biblio
Drupal Biblio Facets
(Faceted Search)

and whenever I do search of biblio references with the Bibio Module, i get the righ tammount of results for a name.
And when I do search with the FAceted Search it brings less results even tho the words are there...

I'm sure im doing everything well..
What can I do to achieve great results and as I posted on the previous comment it would have to search like if it have wildcards.
I'm kinda frustrated.

robertDouglass’s picture

Title: Search on partial words does not work » Implement partial word or wildcard searches
Version: 5.x-dev » 7.x-dev

I've updated the title to reflect that this is a feature request. I've updated the version to reflect that no features will be added to Drupal 5 or 6.

This thread has very valuable analysis from Steven as well as important counter arguments from some non-English speakers who maintain that partial-word or wildcard searches are more valuable in Dutch/German/Polish etc.

joep.hendrix’s picture

Title: Search on partial words does not work » Implement partial word or wildcard searches
Version: 6.x-dev » 7.x-dev

Thank you.

Jesterw00t’s picture

Let me ask this question, what good is a search function if you have to know exactly what your searching for?

If i look at search terms used to find my website, 90% of them are partial word searches that resulted in something useful for the person searching.

If I have a site selling football equipment and someone types in ball, Drupal's search will come up with nothing. Doesn't make much sense from a user standpoint. It doesn't matter how "proper" or "slow" it could make code.. what matters is functionality, if a search function doesn't actually search anything but keywords, its useless.

Talk about Web .0...sheesh.

dww’s picture

How about a setting to toggle if the query against the {search_index} table should be exact match or use an RLIKE? Sure, RLIKE might be too DB intensive for some sites, but for many, having better search results is more important than having performance/scalability. So, give people the choice. That'd be a healthy start, IMHO.

joep.hendrix’s picture

+1 for dww's comment #27

pwolanin’s picture

Hmm, from the MySQL docs:


The REGEXP and RLIKE operators work in byte-wise fashion, so they are not multi-byte safe and may produce unexpected results with multi-byte character sets. In addition, these operators compare characters by their byte values and accented characters may not compare as equal even if a given collation treats them as equal.


robertDouglass’s picture

I wonder if the example of the Czech words could be fixed by Czech stemming?


To my eye, these all have the same stem: Inženýr with one variant, Inženýř. I don't see the eastern european language argument in http://drupal.org/comment/reply/103548/479591#comment-479591 as being a compelling reason to implement wildcard searches. The earthquake argument is more compelling, but would require some sort of *foo + foo* type search which would never be fast. I think the fuzzysearch module with trigrams would be the best bet, but that module needs some algorithm love.

JirkaRybka’s picture

Actually, that "Inženýr" example was just a quick one. In our languages also the begin of some words is variable - #21 applies perfectly to Czech, too. While "Dělat" may become "Přidělat", or "Dělali", but also "Přidělali" (and many more), we definitely need to search for something like *děla*, to have some usable results. Even that won't catch everything (the flexibility is quite big, we can also have "Přiděláno", and related is "Dělník"), but still it would be usable at least. I don't think we can implement Czech language rules / full dictionary, like Google seems to have, but having just partial words matching, the results will become more or less usable.

So, I support #27, unless someone come with a better choice.

robertDouglass’s picture

@JirkaRybka: stemming could affect the prefix of a word, too. Please read the code here and tell me if it would handle your described cases?

JirkaRybka’s picture

That code looks all fine, quite nice stuff going down the route of knowing the logic of the language, but I can't verify it's completness - I'm no language scientist, I don't know all the rules in abstract myself, there are lots of them. My impression is, that it's going to normalize (remove) the endings (suffixes) - at least the most common ones for sure. But the code doesn't seem to do anything about prefixes, and I suspect it might fail on some uncommon/atypic cases.

But most of all I'm worried about the code being Czech-specific solution. That won't work for Polish, Russian, German, whatever. This doesn't look like a solution for Drupal core then, and I'm not sure if a bunch of language-specific contribs is a way to go, to make a core module (search) usable. There's no need for other language-specific modules yet, as far as I see. That would be a lot of maintenance overhead (if someone steps out to do that), people will need to seek for contribs...

A simple, configurable *pattern* match (however slow it might be, although I'm unsure how the speed compares to the mentioned stemming code) looks to me much better, universal solution. I'm in favor of simplicity here.

robertDouglass’s picture

Stemming will always be language specific. The challenge for D7 is to put the language awareness of our content to good use and make sure that stemming can be done in a language specific way. The first step is to build language specific stemmers. There are already Chinese, English and German stemmers. Please lead the effort to get Czech and Polish. The second challenge is to make the way search terms and indexed text are handled more flexible. I've already started this in the patch that makes both rely on the input format and filter system. With such a system we can switch processing based on language. http://drupal.org/node/257007

JirkaRybka’s picture

Although I've still a vague impression of seeing an overkill here, I must admit that this (if finished) will be a great thing to have. But my time and knowledge is way too limited to "lead the effort" to anything this size - Czech is a bit complex language. (Honestly, I'm now more or less leaving the Drupal development, for a variety of reasons.) If I can't have a simple partial- or wildcard-matching, I'll most likely disable search module and link to Google instead - don't take that as a complaint, that's just how my time-budget go.

Good luck, folks, anyway.

Edit: I've re-read that linked issue, and I want to add that it looks really very promising. But still I'm afraid that a sufficient Czech stemmer is not a trivial thing.

robertDouglass’s picture

@JirkaRybka: have you tried trip_search? Doing things the right way is not overkill. We're talking about building correct tools, not about the quickest approximate way to a somewhat acceptable result.

dww’s picture

@robertDouglass: We're talking about building correct tools, not about the quickest approximate way to a somewhat acceptable result.

That's all fine and dandy. ;) However, I don't think an optional partial word search on the index is only a "somewhat acceptable" result. For some (many?, most?) sites it would be acceptable performance, and _better_ functionality than even Google can provide. While I don't intend to jump into the "we need more flexible indexing" issues and shoot those down saying "partial searches on the index is the solution to all our problems", I also don't think it's fair to kill this issue using the reverse logic, either. I really don't see the harm in this. It can certainly default to 'off'. It'd add ~15 lines of code, and would be a great solution for many, many sites.

samc’s picture

I'd love to see partial word search available as module. One of the ways we use Drupal is as a hub for a software development community and forums are a major feature. The lack of partial word search poses serious usability problems for us when, for example, a user searches for the term "libxerces" and can not find a reference to "libxerces-c.so.2.7.0".

I don't know how the porter-stemmer module works, but if there is a way to take a similar approach to enabling partial word search, that would be great. In the meantime, I will be investigating the patch to core, which I hate to do.

If someone wants to organize a bounty for a clean solution to this problem, I'd be willing to contribute as long as it works on 5.x.

robertDouglass’s picture

Ok, so the libxerces example is a case where the handling of the - is at fault. In Drupal's current indexing routine, the - is stripped and the resulting word in the index will be libxercescso270. One of the patches being worked on is repurposing the current input format and filter system to define how the text is handled during indexing. This would allow you to analyze the problem and decide that - shouldn't be replaced witn '' but rather with ' ' , at which point, your search for libxerces would work. So again, this isn't necessarily a problem that should be solved with partial word search.

samc’s picture

Point taken. If you've got a link to that issue handy, please post.

OTOH, we'd also like a search for "xerces" to pull up the "libxerces-..." article, which does seem like a legitimate use case for partial word search.

robertDouglass’s picture

Point taken. My proposed solution would be to extend the query builder in a way that adds an OR word LIKE '%%s%' segment to the query. To make this effective stemmers would have to stop replacing the words they stem and start duplicating them. %s in the query segment would have to be processed the same way, though. If the keyword is "matches", instead of stemming it to "match", it would have to be stemmed and added to the original with and OR, like this: "match OR matches"

Frank Steiner’s picture

1.26 KB
Repository checkout: failed to checkout from [:pserver:anonymous:anonymous@cvs.drupal.org:/cvs/drupal/drupal]. View

Just in case someone wants this for drupal 6, here's the patch adjusted for 6.2. Additionally, it highlights partial words in the snippets.

grn’s picture

Version: 7.x-dev » 6.4

Hi. This patch (partial_word_search_6_2.patch 1.26 KB) worked great with Drupal 6.3 but something happened in 6.4:

# warning: call_user_func_array() [function.call-user-func-array]: First argument is expected to be a valid callback, 'search_theme_form' was given in C:\Inetpub\drupal_test\includes\form.inc on line 366.
# warning: include_once(./modules/search/search.module) [function.include-once]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in C:\Inetpub\drupal_test\includes\bootstrap.inc on line 563.

Any hints?

douggreen’s picture

Version: 6.4 » 7.x-dev

Moving this back to a 7.x feature request. I agree with Steven's analysis, that doing a LIKE in the SQL here is NOT the solution we want, and will be slow.

lilou’s picture

Status: Active » Needs work
star26bsd’s picture

I do understand all concerns raised by the developers here - in regard to not use the expensive 'like'. However, my real world view is based on the view of my customers. They want it. Period.

Thanks for this patch. It's simple, ugly and works.


Frank Steiner’s picture

@ #43: sounds more like you changed permission of the search.module file when patching it so you have no permission anymore to open this file.

grn’s picture

Hey, I patched the file manually, it's working fine now.

yang_yi_cn’s picture

It works. I've been using it for a while on my production site but found that there's a problem with the score factor.

Normally, search results are ordered by Drupal's search score, which uses the sum of matches. Each of the matches are weighted differently. For example, h1 has 25.

function search_index() {
  $tags = array('h1' => 25,
                'h2' => 18,
                'h3' => 15,
                'h4' => 12,
                'h5' => 9,
                'h6' => 6,
                'u' => 3,
                'b' => 3,
                'i' => 3,
                'strong' => 3,
                'em' => 3,
                'a' => 10);

It works well when the partial word patch is not applied. However, when the partial word search is used, there are too many matches in the body, because it's much easier to get matched partially, and the result score overruns the title's score. Thus, practically, the weight system is not working.

Is there any way to improve that?

isidoromendez’s picture

1.59 KB
Failed: Failed to apply patch. View

#42 related. (partial_word_search_6_2.patch)

Here is the patch made by Frank Steiner updated for Drupal 6.6

star26bsd’s picture

Thanks. Works for 6.8 perfectly, too.

timatlee’s picture

Works in 6.9 too. Thanks!

toddwoof’s picture

Re: Patch in #50: This works great for partial word search using the regular site-wide search box, but appears to break other things:

(1) I added an exposed Search filter to a View, to allow people to do a key word search within the view. With this patch applied, using the exposed search filter results in the View returning several duplicate copies of records (one for each version of the word, I suppose).

(2) And, the "Distinct" setting in a View can't be set in order to fix that problem, if this patch is applied. If you set it to "Yes" the result is that the view will return no records.

robertDouglass’s picture

Have you benchmarked this patch with a non-trivial index (say 100,000 nodes or more), and a tool like the Search Bench module? http://drupal.org/project/searchbench It is important for the proponents of this patch to show that it can be done in a way that doesn't cause a serious performance regression.

Frank Steiner’s picture

Here's a problem with the partial word search:

A query like Bart Lisa which is equivalent to Bart AND Lisa is converted into sth. like

SELECT i.type, i.sid FROM search_index... WHERE (i.word like 'Bart' OR i.word like 'Lisa')..  GROUP BY i.type, i.sid HAVING COUNT(*) >= 2

Thus, the AND query becomes a mysql OR query but due to the GROUP BY and the COUNT >=2 both keywords must match, so this is an AND query.

But when you have e.g. "Bart.Simpson@..." in a page, then the search index stores "bartsimpson", too. Then with the partial word search patch a node containing "Bart" and "Bart.Simpson" will deliver two matches for i.word like '%Bart%', because it matches "bartsimpson" too. Thus, this page would be returned even when it doesn't contain "Lisa".

Thus, the partial word search doesn't allow for a reliable AND search anymore.

Scott Reynolds’s picture

Thought I would point out this comment by myself: http://groups.drupal.org/node/16760#comment-57327

It implements N-Gram searching. Basically, N-Gram will break the words into N-size pieces and those will be whats added to the index. Thus standard search queries will work as is but will find partial words. The actual code to do that all the N-Gram stuff is really small, the stop words take up most of the lines of code in that example.

For example, N = 3,
It will take Bart and break it into Bar, art. And it will take Bart@simpson.com and break it into Bar, art, rt@, t@s .....

And the way search api is written, all queries will be broken into 3-grams as well. So when you search for Bart, it will really search for words in the search index matching Bar, art, thus returning bart@simpson.com

Same is true for earthquake and quake. The module works by trading off the size of the search index for query speed. Which, in my experience is acceptable. Much MUCH MUCH better then LIKE queries /me shivers. I make use of this on a couple small sites that I have deployed with strong results. Pretty elegant module, simple and small.

N-Grams are language independent as well. (Where as, stemming is very language dependent.) Though, the stop words part of that module is language dependent.

I have not tested the current patch, but I would guess that my method is far quicker on query time. But will store more data.

Scott Reynolds’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
4.63 KB
Failed: Failed to apply patch. View

So I took my module and ported it to Drupal 7 as a patch. It does a few things to note

  • Provides methods to have full word matching or variable gram size matching
  • Invalidates the search index when that setting is changed
  • Highlights the word that match the keys, either partially or fully. I will post a small screen shot as a follow up.

It needs performance review even though it doesn't change the search query at all. It changes how things are indexed. It will result in a larger search_index table.

Scott Reynolds’s picture

50.69 KB
58.07 KB

As promised, here is two screen shots.

search-3-gram.jpeg is with 3-Gram setting turned on. As you can see it found dogs and dog

search-no-gram.jpeg is normal Drupal search, with Full Word Match setting.

Scott Reynolds’s picture

3.05 KB

So I benchmarked the query results using a traditional 3-Gram using 5000 nodes 10000 comments. First the search_index went from 12Mb to 44mb. Which is a significant increase.

The apache benchmark results (see attached) state that it essentially doubled the response time. Which isn't good considering how slow the response time is on search pages already. (See attached for detailed results).

That all being said, I am pretty sure this is the only way to accomplish this goal reliably. Its an industry standard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-gram and it is language independent (unlike stemming).

And this patch provides the user a way to turn it off. It can have standard Drupal search implementation (Full Word Matches only).

star26bsd’s picture

Hey Scott ,

your work is great news for those currently forced to use the hacked partial word search. Any chances you could port your solution to drupal6?


Scott Reynolds’s picture

3.61 KB

Don't need a patch just a module. Here is the module I wrote that I use on sites. You can probably even install it on Drupal 5 site. No modifications needed.

See attached. It even does stop word filtering for you. So all those words in English will be ignored.

It isn't do the search_wipe() when the gram size is changed, and maybe the english isn't as clear but it works.

star26bsd’s picture

Great, thanks a lot. I will start testing tomorrow.

Are you planning to move this module into a Drupal Contributions CVS account? I am interested to extend your stuff to also use stop words of other languages easily...

Scott Reynolds’s picture

I won't release this on D.o cause there is a similar module out there: http://drupal.org/project/fuzzysearch

See my post here: http://drupal.org/node/413726

star26bsd’s picture

Fuzzy search is not available for D6 either ;(

dww’s picture

@Scott Reynolds: You rock. A) Nice solution. B) Thanks for resisting the temptation to duplicate an existing module. Don't let rickauer fool you into thinking you're doing the wrong thing by your honorable and responsible position. ;) Keep up the good work, and good luck getting fuzzysearch to accept your changes. Cheers.

star26bsd’s picture

Nobody is trying to fool anybody. Nor is anybody trying to make one think in a way you interpret it. I was merely stating that none of the solutions existing yet are usable for D6. Anything else is made up by your own imagination. If you had read my comment #62 you'd have seen I also appreciate the current efforts a lot.

Scott Reynolds’s picture

Status: Needs review » Needs work

@rickauer: I wouldn't take dww's comment as targeting you. He meant it as encouragement. Drupal community as a whole is tired of module duplication without good reason. And I feel there isn't significant reasoning to release this a separate module.

I am really interested to hear what Blake has to say. He is a pretty smart guy and I'm sure he looked at implementing this within Search API. Wonder why he choose not too.

@dww I do hope you get a chance to review this patch. It improves the search module significantly. I wrote somewhere in a draft of a comment that this patch "it is oozing with Drupal Goodness (tm)". It really is. It is able to work with most (if not all) languages. It can be turned off and configured.

The third hunk needs to be moved down so search API modules can use the hooks properly. And its missing unit tests (yes unit tests not functional tests, wrote the ngram function purposely for unit testing)

Those are my two minor issues with this patch as it stands.

dww’s picture

@rickauer: Indeed, sorry -- that was not at all an insult or slight directed at you -- i was trying to be funny and encourage Scott, that's all. Didn't mean to slander you in the process...

@Scott: I'll certainly try to review some day, but my Drupal time is vastly over-committed at the moment, and struggling to get changes into core is not something I have a lot of energy for right now.

osimax’s picture

Version: 7.x-dev » 6.10
Category: feature » support

I've installed this module search_gram.zip at my Drupal 6.10 site and reindexed all pages with 3-gram. The search stopped working at all - it gives me nothing found and a kind of error - something like "You should use word longer than 3 chars and not excluded" (this is rough translation to English). My site uses Russian language locale and UTF-8 encoding.
Without search_gram search is working ok but as always no partial match :(
Any suggestions what's the problem with using search_gram ?
Thanks for your reply in advance.

JirkaRybka’s picture

Version: 6.10 » 7.x-dev
Category: support » feature

The module ZIP'ed in comment #61 above have one serious problem: It uses plain php's substr() function, which is NOT multibyte (utf-8) safe. So it works fine for English (where all characters are single-byte, i.e. plain old 7-bit ASCII), but not so good (I guess) for other european languages, where some characters (also known as 'accented') consist of more bytes in the utf-8 encoding - substr is just byte-oriented, and so it breaks these characters/sequences into invalid/incomplete utf-8 codes, instead of splitting the string at character boundaries). So I think the important point here is the russian language - it's an entirely different alphabet, having ALL characters multibyte (and longer than western "accented" ones too!), so I see it probably makes quite a mess with the strings. The same applies to all other non-latin languages (arabic, hebrew, chinese, japanese etc.)

The function substr() should be replaced with something that's multibyte-safe. PHP offers the function mb_substr() for this purpose, but it's an extension not enabled by default, so that's probably not a good choice (going to fail on some sites/webhosts). I suggest trying the Drupal's own alternative drupal_substr(), which is going to be slower, but hopefully working fine, and is always available for a module (it's in Drupal core). Arguments/syntax should be the same for all these functions, but I didn't examine in-depth.

Also, please don't recategorize long-standing development issues into support requests - you're not tagging just your comment/question, you're changing the location of whole thread, lowering it's chances to get appropriate attention. The initial topic was about solving the problem in core, not about these late workarounds.

osimax’s picture

Hi JirkaRybka!
First of all, sorry for recategorizing issue. It was first time I was posting reply at drupal.org , so I was not completely sure how I should treat these parameters.

Regarding issue: I have mbstring enabled at my host. I've also noticed that strlen function should be replaced with mb_strlen . There is also such line of code as
$terms = preg_split('/([^a-zA-Z]+)/', str_replace("'", '', $text), -1, PREG_SPLIT_NO_EMPTY );
I have replaced it with
$terms = mb_split('/([^a-zA-Zа-яА-Я]+)/', str_replace("'", '', $text), -1 );

Now it looks like search is working fine . The only concern is that mb_split is omitting PREG_SPLIT_NO_EMPTY ... so a lot empty strings will be in result, right? How to solve this?

I am not PHP developer, but advanced user, and not very strong with regular expressions and multibyte charsets. If somebody can help me to resolve this last (and I think simple) question I will appreciate very much.

I've used SQL Search module with Drupal 5 and it worked ok. Still don't understand why it is not supported anymore ...

Scott Reynolds’s picture

awesome thanks for the review. I concur, need to use drupal_substr(). Interesting bit on preg_split. Anyone have any insights on that with other languages ?

I won't be updating the drupal 6 zip file. Just something i just put together and I carry in my toolkit.

JirkaRybka’s picture

I didn't really analyze the code, I only just spotted an obvious problem on quick read. #71 mentions more places to replace functions with their multibyte-safe counterparts, that's obviously good direction too. As for the regular expression, apart from the multibyte-safe issue (solved by mb_split(), if available), I see a problem in the list of character ranges 'a-zA-Z' being insufficient for many languages. osimax added ranges for russian alphabet, but there is more around the planet... So I would suggest to search for some character-classes stuff (either in the regex, or other php extensions), where you can specify characters by groups like "letters", "numbers", "punctuation" etc.

Just a quick comment, otherwise I have no time to really work on this, let alone solving it for core (if that's going to be even accepted, which I doubt after the above long discussion - it's a pity how de-motivating feel the Drupal community often give). An extra module, if that's the way to go, should really get an own project, or be merged with another, or posted to some kind of own thread, IMO. Just thinking out loud.

Scott Reynolds’s picture

Title: Implement partial word or wildcard searches » Implement N-Gram searches
Assigned: Unassigned » Scott Reynolds
Status: Needs work » Needs review
233.61 KB
5.99 KB
Failed: Failed to apply patch. View

Ok updated the patch with changes mentioned.
1.) use drupal* functions so its multi byte compliant.
2.) move the N-Graming down in the process so as to allow modules to preprocess the whole word text not the n-grammed
3.) Fix highlighting. It appeared to work by chance. this change works for English Im sure. other languages, needs that tested. It uses the [\w] regex character which might not work with other languages?

See screenshot with working highlighting.

JirkaRybka’s picture

Great, I'm going to test on Czech site, but unfortunately my *very* limited time of these days is not really promising, as for my review coming soon. Other reviewers welcome, as always ;-)

On quick read, I see two hunks in the patch just removing blank lines somewhere - that's most probably a leftover from previous edits, and might as well be removed from the patch. As for the regex part, now I see there's already the 'u' modifier at the end of pattern, so it should work for UTF-8; I'm only unsure about '\w' vs. UTF-8 specific '\pL' (plus '\pN' and perhaps more) as mentioned here, but I'm rather new to this sort of thing and didn't test yet, so don't take me too seriously :)

Great to see progress here, really.

Scott Reynolds’s picture

so interesting tid-bit though i think it actually failed to answer my question
"A "word" character is any letter or digit or the underscore character, that is, any character which can be part of a Perl "word". The definition of letters and digits is controlled by PCRE's character tables, and may vary if locale-specific matching is taking place. For example, in the "fr" (French) locale, some character codes greater than 128 are used for accented letters, and these are matched by \w."

And looking at this comment http://www.php.net/manual/en/reference.pcre.pattern.syntax.php#54830 it appears that \w will capture locale specific stuff.

but it mentions that "traditional escape sequences such as \d and \w do not use Unicode properties in PCRE" so I don't know anymore :-D. Just needs someone to review to tell me if it needs work

cburschka’s picture

Partial word matching sounds very, very cool. But even on reading the patch very thoroughly, I was unable to understand how the final matching works.

Does it break search terms into N-Grams as well? If so, will we get "heartburn" when searching for "earthquake" on a four character index?
Or does it only match full search terms? In which case we miss out "earthquake" if we search for "quake", because earthquake is only broken into "eart", "arth", "rthq", "thqu", "hqua", "quak" and "uake", and "quake" isn't in there at all?

Either of these would be a show-stopper, and I'm not sure how you avoid both of them.

JirkaRybka’s picture

I didn't have time to review and test so far, but I'm under impression that if we break both indexed contents and searched terms into the grams, then we get on a 4-characters index :

'Earthquake' => eart + arth + rthq + thqu + hqua + quak + uake
'Hearthburn' => hear + eart + arth + rthb + thbu + burn

Searching for 'Earthquake' (=> eart + arth + rthq + thqu + hqua + quak + uake):
'Earthquake': 7 matches out of 7 possible, relevant search result
'Hearthburn': 2 matches out of 7, not much relevant, falling to the bottom of search results

Searching for 'Quake' (=> quak + uake):
'Earthquake': 2 matches out of 2, relevant result (as oposed to current core bahavior, where we get NO result at all)
'Heartburn': 0 matches out of 2, no result

Searching for 'Heart' (=> hear + eart):
'Earthquake': 1 match out of 2, not much relevant result
'Heartburn': 2 matches out of 2, relevant result

We might as well check the score, to remove results where - say - less than 50%, less than 2/3 or so matches.

I don't really know how the current patch works yet, just thinking out loud.

EDIT: Now I realize, that we most probably want to just use the AND logic, so that all the subparts of search term must match. (I don't know how that plays with the AND/OR logic of search terms, nor whether we want to do something about the grams needing to be in a row rather than randomly around the content item, but this is too deep water given that I didn't really test the patch yet, so I'm not saying any conclusions. BTW testing might be tricky for me, as my localhost environment is not able to install D7 due to php/MySQL versions being kept in sync with my production site due to other testing).

cburschka’s picture

Thank you for the clarification. Of course with a scored ranking all this makes more sense.

There are still some pitfalls if each N-Gram is treated as a separate match rather than calculating a matching score for each keyword, because many badly scored keywords could eclipse a few well-scoring ones.

For example, in a three character index, a post that contains "heartburn", "hearing" and "near" could score more highly than a post containing "earthquake" when searching for "earth":

earth: ear art rth

Post A:
heartburn: hea ear art tbu bur urn - 2 matches
hearing: hea ear ari rin ing 1 match
near: nea ear 1 match
4 matches

Post B:
earthquake: ear art rth thq hqu qua uak ake 3 matches
3 matches
JirkaRybka’s picture

Quite right. I was also adding a P.S. to #78 (not expecting you to reply so fast), with more thoughts. But as I said there, I didn't really find the time to test this, or think through properly, so I can't go to further discussion until I do that. My apologies.

pwolanin’s picture

Given the possibly serious performance implications of doing this (a ballooning of the index size, for example) it seems like it might be better to provide the hook (if absent) so that this can be implemented in contrib?

JirkaRybka’s picture

It's debatable of course, but from my (non-English based) point of view, the core search module is broken horribly (being unable to find even very basic things, such as my own post I forgot URL for, despite throwing 10 different searches), and if I were a user not knowing about this issue, I certainly won't think this was something to be fixed by a contrib module rather than filing a bug report against core. Just thinking out loud, it's a question of the borders between bug report / feature request / additional functionality[module], really. It might be an usabilty issue, too. The performance implications are a little discussed above (i.e. making this optional, the patch have a setting for that - many sites are not that large / searched that often).

But anyway, none of the proposed solutions here were my ideas, I'm only just highly supportive to this functionality, since I see it as one of very major, long-standing problems of Drupal. I voiced my support already, so no need to rant further ;-)

Scott Reynolds’s picture

Ok as the patch writer a few comments:

Before commenting please note: this setting is optional. It can be turned on and turned off. If this setting is giving your site performance issues, turn it off as suggested by dww in comment 27. I know people get wrapped up in talking about performance, without realizing that all this does is provide an option to do N-Gram searching.

The assertions about how n-gram searching works is accurate. But afraid your over thinking this a bit. If a user just searched quake, the top result appears to be the only post on earthquake. Heartburn was returned but ranked lower. This is the situation that Fuzzy Search handles by adding a minimum score parameter therefore, removing things with low match rate. This is doable, but requires us to use temp tables, I think. I believe that would be the only way to achieve this with cross-db. Temp tables are slow, and purposely removed from core search in D6.

And truthfully, I do not believe its that a big of an issue. The purpose of this technique is to broader the search results. And in your very limited 2 content (with each piece of content having exactly one word) it still did just that for you. I would encourage you to do a checkout of HEAD, use http://drupal.org/project/devel to create a bunch of content and test it out.

Re: hook and a module for contrib:
See comment #61: http://drupal.org/node/103548#comment-1388532. The hooks required for this are already there.
What would need to change is the snippet Regex (as the original Regex expects a whole word match. In the latest patch, the new regex is there).

This is the hook: http://api.drupal.org/api/function/hook_search_preprocess/7

chx’s picture

Status: Needs review » Needs work

That's a bit ironic, people hacking search module and askin' Unicode support. preg optionally supports Unicode. Steven had the wisdom to not rely on that instead extracted the relevant classes into nice preg defines on top of search module. Use them.

Scott Reynolds’s picture

I use all those preg defines. What the question surrounds is the following problem

I searched for "dog", and it return a result with the word "doggie". I want to highlight "doggie". The current Regex, expects the matched word (in this case "dog") to start and end as a complete 'word'. So what was added so that we can achieve what we want is a lil change

-      if (preg_match('/' . $boundary . $key . $boundary . '/iu', $text, $match, PREG_OFFSET_CAPTURE, $included[$key])) {
+      if (preg_match('/' . $boundary . '[\w]*' . $key . '[\w]*' . $boundary . '/iu', $text, $match, PREG_OFFSET_CAPTURE, $included[$key])) {

That allows us to match around punctuation, brackets and the whole slew of unindexable characters.

What I think needs to be changed is instead of using [\w]* it should be [\p{L}]*. Which says "has property letter".


Scott Reynolds’s picture

so basically, need to define a new PREG_CLASS that matches all "L" characters. And we then need to update regex to match the N character classes (with the use of the puncation class as well) and the "L" character classes.

unicode provides code charts for this: http://unicode.org/charts/

robertDouglass’s picture

I smell a core patch for the L classes.

Scott Reynolds’s picture

5.35 KB
Failed: Failed to apply patch. View

Here is the updated patch. chx comment #84 was right on the money, not sure why I didn't leverage it the right way before. The index contains more then L
* Lu Letter, Uppercase
* Ll Letter, Lowercase
* Lt Letter, Titlecase
* Lo Letter, Other
* Nd Number, Decimal Digit
* No Number, Other

So, instead why don't we say [^SEARCH_EXCLUDE]*. So thats the improvement in this patch

Scott Reynolds’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
5.35 KB
Repository checkout: failed to checkout from [:pserver:anonymous:anonymous@cvs.drupal.org:/cvs/drupal/drupal]. View

Ok so there was a coding style error and a bad if statement in the Validate function. This patch fixes that. It is now ready for another review.

Something to think about.
Should we not allow users to choose the gram size and just set the gram size equal to the minimum word length?

Then that would allow users to select a radio, full word matches or partial word matches. That better and less confusing then current options?

Status: Needs review » Needs work

The last submitted patch failed testing.

Scott Reynolds’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
4.3 KB
Failed: Failed to install HEAD. View

Re-roll. Surprise it didn't apply last time. It worked with

patch -p0 < /tmp/n_gram.patch

Status: Needs review » Needs work

The last submitted patch failed testing.

jhodgdon’s picture

I am not in favor of this being added to core as an option. I think it should remain as a contributed module, as I think it is now for Drupal 6.

The reason I think this is that for some sites in some langauges, stemming modules are a better option for improving search results than n-grams (more efficient, linguistics-based so no false matches, etc.). It would be helpful if Drupal's documentation made it more clear that the core Search module is doing exact word matching only (people's search expectations are keyed to Google, which doesn't have that restriction), and perhaps if the search module's set-up page or help page suggested that people check out stemming and n-gram modules as methods for changing this behavior. But I don't think Drupal core should be endorsing the n-gram approach, when it isn't necessarily the best approach for all sites and all languages.

amc’s picture

Issue tags: +Drupal default Search


dww’s picture

Issue tags: -Drupal default Search

If the criteria for a feature being in core is that it's the "best approach for all sites and all languages", Drupal is doomed. Almost nothing satisfies that criteria...

dww’s picture

Issue tags: +Drupal default Search

(Sorry, cross-post)

jhodgdon’s picture

Well, how about at least making sure the help screens for Search in core make it clear that search is exact keywords and there are two approaches (at least) for changing that behavior?

dww’s picture

@jhodgdon: Sounds like a fine idea, but a separate feature request. Prepare yourself for a 100 comment "usability" bikeshed issue, though. ;) Please don't start that here. This is an issue for adding a working, helpful addition to core search functionality that could benefit many (definitely not all) sites. Thanks.

jhodgdon’s picture

OK. I'll review the help screens and see what I can do/suggest. :)

dww’s picture

@jhodgdon: Cool. Please add a link here to your new issue once you've submitted something, so any interested parties from here can join in the fun. ;)

jhodgdon’s picture

For anyone that is interested, I've just added (with a patch to the Search module's help text): #546302: Help screen for Search module doesn't make limitations clear

If this issue gets committed to core, that patch will need a revision.

catch’s picture

Version: 7.x-dev » 8.x-dev

Moving to Drupal 8.

Status: Needs work » Needs review
Issue tags: -Drupal default Search

heimlicher requested that failed test be re-tested.

Issue tags: +Drupal default Search

Re-test of search_gram.patch from comment #89 was requested by Balbo.

Balbo’s picture

I'm not sure I understand what is going on here. Is this the patch I have to apply if I want to provide my drupal-site with partial words search? Why is the status ignored?

jhodgdon’s picture

Balbo: This issue is now bumped up to Drupal 8, as it is too late for feature changes to Drupal 7. The testing bot is ignoring the patch because it is not a Drupal 7 patch.

As to applying the patch, are you running Drupal 7? If so, the above patch might work for you. If you are running Drupal 6, unlikely.

roberto.scaccaglia’s picture

Version: 8.x-dev » 6.15
1.57 KB

Waiting for Drupal 8 i have changed, based on some posts above, five lines of code of search.module (by Drupal 6.15 version) and now
i can search partial words and highlight the search key in strong style. I have tested the cahnges on few contents but
they seem to work (waiting for something more efficient and sophisticated). I have attached a file text with the changes.

jhodgdon’s picture

Version: 6.15 » 8.x-dev

Sorry, but feature requests are not accepted for Drupal 6 any more. Feature requests are also past time for Drupal 7. We are only considering feature requests for Drupal 8 at this time.

SepehrLajevardi’s picture

Assigned: Unassigned » Scott Reynolds
2.42 KB
FAILED: [[SimpleTest]]: [MySQL] Unable to apply patch search.module-6.15.patch. View

Directions in #107 has been successfully tested against D6.15 & here is the patch.
As others reported the patch is also working with 6.16 to 6.20 releases.

jhodgdon’s picture

See comment #106 above...

Maybe someone could make this into a contributed module for Drupal 6, so that people wouldn't have to patch the core files of Drupal 6 to get this functionality?

SchnWalter’s picture

2.25 KB
FAILED: [[SimpleTest]]: [MySQL] Unable to apply patch search.module-6.16.patch. Unable to apply patch. See the log in the details link for more information. View

I've updated the patch made by Sepehr Lajevardi (see comment #109) in order to have partial search in drupal v6.16.

EDIT: ups... it must be applied within the search module folder "/modules/search"...

Grayside’s picture

For thread completeness: Fuzzy Search already exists and has a new active maintainer in the last few weeks.

Daniel Wentsch’s picture

@SumyTheSlayer (#111) you made my day. Thanks a lot :)
Also works within views search filter (which Fuzzy Search does not, unfortunately).

tomsm’s picture

Does this patch also work for 6.17?

PS: A contributed module is a great idea.

I just applied the patch to 6.17. Works great. Thanks!
This is very useful, especially with Dutch language that contains many combined words.

Is it possible to show exact word results first followed by the partly results?

naveen123456’s picture

yes it really works (comment number 48 - partial_word_search_6_2.patch)thanks. you just need to replace two liens-
$query2 = substr(str_repeat("i.word = '%s' OR ", count($arguments2)), 0, -4);
TO This
+ $query2 = substr(str_repeat("i.word like '%%%s%%' OR ", count($arguments2)), 0, -4);



+ $boundary = '';

Sadi’s picture

search.module_9.patch queued for re-testing.

Danny Englander’s picture


Scott Reynolds’s picture

Assigned: Scott Reynolds » Unassigned

- myself

houdelou’s picture

Patch at #109 is working with 6.19. Thank you very much for this patch.

mansspams’s picture

Assigned: Scott Reynolds » Unassigned

Patch at #109 is working, I just wonder how to get that partial word to highlight

jhodgdon’s picture

mansspams’s picture

Thanks for tips jhodgdon

I went with jQuery + updated version + code in comments to take value from search field and highlight results. http://johannburkard.de/blog/programming/javascript/highlight-javascript...

krupsonline4u@gmail.com’s picture

Issue tags: -Drupal default Search

#4: search.module_10.patch queued for re-testing.

Status: Needs review » Needs work
Issue tags: +Drupal default Search

The last submitted patch, search.module-6.16.patch, failed testing.

cptX’s picture

Hi to all, I tried patch 6.15 from #109 but it didn't work in drupal 6.19. Any ideas why?

For example, I have a very large word alskdjlfkasdjlfkaskf and I get a part of it lets say "djlfk". This is found correctly. Then if I change a single letter let's say "djkfk" the search can't find it. Please advise...

jhodgdon’s picture

Did you run cron to index your changed page?

cptX’s picture

Yes, of course!

frankie’s picture

What about D7?

guyFawkes’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review

#4: search.module_10.patch queued for re-testing.

frob’s picture


pwolanin’s picture

Status: Needs review » Closed (won't fix)

Per discussion with jhodgdon, this is not appropriate for core at this point, so please do it in contrib, or look at non-SQL search engines that already provide this.

govind.maloo’s picture

Status: Closed (won't fix) » Needs review

search.module_9.patch queued for re-testing.

pwolanin’s picture

Status: Needs review » Closed (won't fix)

"won't fix"

govind.maloo’s picture

okay i'll try something else

Daniel Wentsch’s picture

Confirming search.module-6.16.patch from #111 working on 6.24

tYb’s picture

Status: Closed (won't fix) » Needs review
Issue tags: -Drupal default Search

#111: search.module-6.16.patch queued for re-testing.

Status: Needs review » Needs work
Issue tags: +Drupal default Search

The last submitted patch, search.module-6.16.patch, failed testing.

clemens.tolboom’s picture

Status: Needs work » Closed (won't fix)

[Stock response from Dreditor templates and macros.]

This issue was resolved and/or closed before.

It is considered impolite to the developers to continue discussion as they are notified on fixed work.

If you think there is value for the current discussion best thing to do is to create a new issue to get the attention your discussion deserves.

milkmiruku’s picture

Status: Closed (won't fix) » Postponed
wsherliker’s picture

2.69 KB

Not sure if anyone is still interested in this but I updated the patch to search.module-6.26.patch as attached. Seems to work for us.

Jenechka’s picture

Same patch for Drupal 6 search module. But now you can control search condition by implementing a hook in your module.

  1. Apply patch from drupal root directory
  2. Implement hook_search_condition_type
function MY_MODULE_search_condition_type() {
  return 'contains'; // Allowed values are: 'contains', 'starts_from' or 'equals'
ianthomas_uk’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
janis_lv’s picture

I'm sorry, but witch patch to use for d7 search?

jhodgdon’s picture

Maybe comment #91? I'm not sure. You might also check out https://drupal.org/project/fuzzysearch

janis_lv’s picture

fuzzy search is broken on d7, won't install :[

floatingpointmatt’s picture

Is n-gram searching scheduled for release in D8?

Will it be backported to D7?

I may be missing something here, but it seems like this "issue" is still in limbo.

I understand the arguments against pushing into core, re: scope of search functionality (search can be a specialized need, how do you please everybody) and the obvious potential for performance issues; however, isn't it a little embarrassing that something hasn't been included after 8 years of discussion?

As a content management system, can Drupal afford to offload what is arguably a crucial user experience concern (which is heavily related to content management)?

Shouldn't this be an "out of the box" expectation?

I'd settle for an option to change the search style from "matches" to "contains" in admin/config/search/settings with a good faith disclaimer that the change could impair performance.

(NOTE: I realize that's an oversimplification; however...)

Not to trot out unrelated comparisons, but WordPress (circa 3.7 - Oct. 2013) realized they had search issues and rewrote their search functionality to better support end users. Since that project is similarly core + plugin/module driven, does this not further the notion that search is a core issue?

(Putting aside WordPress, I'm having difficulty thinking of another search that forces an exact match at the moment...)

I realize that Solr, Search API, Porter-Stemmer, Fuzzy Search (only considered production ready for D6), and other alternatives exist. I'm just in favour of having something a little stronger (and with fewer dependencies) available.

I wish I could support this stance with a "here's the code," but I'm not there yet...

jhodgdon’s picture

If you want to have N-Gram searches, I believe there is a contributed module that you can add to Drupal to do this in Drupal 6 or 7. If that module is broken, you may make an issue with the developers of that module.

Drupal Core has never been the only thing you need to build a site -- you'll always need add-on modules. Most larger sites will not use the Drupal Core search module -- they'll be using Solr or something like that -- but we can't add Solr to Core, since it requires more than a generic PHP/MySQL server to run. And we're not going to be adding something like Porter Stemmer that only works for English to Core -- that is definitely add-on territory since it is specific to one language, and as noted in comments above, it is probably a better alternative than N-gram.

I'm not actually convinced that N-gram is a very good alternative at all... maybe someone could research search technology alternatives and make a better argument than "this kind of works" to say why we should adopt it and incur the database size problems?

floatingpointmatt’s picture

Thanks @jhodgdon for clarifying. I'll have another look for N-Gram searches.

I agree that search is complex (especially regarding appropriate handling in multilingual situations); however, despite understanding that, it still boils down to getting different search results when doing simple searches like:

apple vs. apples

I can explain until the cows come home to the folks I'm supporting that it's not an exact match, so they're missing results, but that's not user-friendly, or expected. People are used to Google, Bing, Yahoo, word processing software, spreadsheets, text editors and a multitude of other software that tells them to expect partial matches.

With a key feature like search, which supports weighting based on HTML markup, taxonomy, etc. and an advanced feature to let me filter by content types and to perform other filtering/criteria refinements, but that doesn't cover a fairly common use case feels unnecessarily detrimental to Drupal adoption.

I understand Drupal provides a stable base for customized builds, and that third party product integration (like Solr) would rarely (if ever) be added to the core (even if it didn't carry significant dependencies) -- but in this case, I'd make the argument that the core should solve common problems and this qualifies.

I'm presently at a spot where the core search (with N-gram) would do exactly what I need done (which is to serve as an anchor for some deeper auto-complete functionality), but I'm now trying to figure out what I can use (Porter-Stemmer tinkers with search_index values and still leaves gaps, Search API doesn't inherently honour permissions, Solr is super heavyweight for what I want to do, etc.).

I don't expect to shift things (after all the discussion to date), but I wanted to at least offer up my vote for a review of core search functionality.

As a final note, I do want to recognize the work to date on the core search functionality. There has obviously been a lot of thought that has gone into the implementation. I have not been privy to all the groundwork to get to this point, and it's true that core + contrib will get most things done.

Anyhow, that's my $0.02...

jhodgdon’s picture

Status: Postponed » Active

You've made your point. :) Really, I do understand. But expecting Core to do everything is not realistic either, and having to install another module you download from Drupal.org is not considered a bug.

In any case, I don't think we necessarily need to have this be "postponed". If someone wants to make a viable patch for Drupal 8, I think we'd at least review it.

jhodgdon’s picture

Version: 8.0.x-dev » 8.1.x-dev

Since 8.0.x-beta1 has been released, our policy at this point is No feature requests until 8.1.x. See #2350615: [policy, no patch] What changes can be accepted during the Drupal 8 beta phase?. Sorry, it's just too late for 8.0.x at this point, so even if we had a viable patch, the core committers would not commit it. So unless we decide this is a Task or a Bug (and I don't think it is), we'll have to delay it.

izmeez’s picture

Related issues: +#498752: Partial word search

Issue #498752: Partial word search was previously closed as a duplicate.

It is a different and less complex approach. It is certainly related to this issue and has now been tagged as such.

However, that issue should remain active as a feature request for a 8.1.x-dev so that both approaches can be considered.

This issue is also being tagged as related to the other issue.

Version: 8.1.x-dev » 8.2.x-dev

Drupal 8.1.0-beta1 was released on March 2, 2016, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted against the 8.2.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal 8 minor version schedule and the Allowed changes during the Drupal 8 release cycle.

Version: 8.2.x-dev » 8.3.x-dev

Drupal 8.2.0-beta1 was released on August 3, 2016, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted against the 8.3.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal 8 minor version schedule and the Allowed changes during the Drupal 8 release cycle.

Version: 8.3.x-dev » 8.4.x-dev

Drupal 8.3.0-alpha1 will be released the week of January 30, 2017, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted against the 8.4.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal 8 minor version schedule and the Allowed changes during the Drupal 8 release cycle.

Version: 8.4.x-dev » 8.5.x-dev

Drupal 8.4.0-alpha1 will be released the week of July 31, 2017, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted against the 8.5.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal 8 minor version schedule and the Allowed changes during the Drupal 8 release cycle.

VBN’s picture

Why oh why is this not implemented yet...?
It's a big thing in my pov that leaves a feature request for years now and has no alternative as a module form...

Version: 8.5.x-dev » 8.6.x-dev

Drupal 8.5.0-alpha1 will be released the week of January 17, 2018, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted against the 8.6.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal 8 minor version schedule and the Allowed changes during the Drupal 8 release cycle.