DESCRIPTION

FAQ

 Why is fuzzy matching slow?

    Example:

     use Benchmark qw(timethis);
     use Complete::Util qw(complete_array_elem);
    
     # turn off the other non-exact matching methods
     $Complete::Common::OPT_CI = 0;
     $Complete::Common::OPT_WORD_MODE = 0;
     $Complete::Common::OPT_CHAR_MODE = 0;
    
     my @ary = ("aaa".."zzy"); # 17575 elems
     timethis(20, sub { complete_array_elem(array=>\@ary, word=>"zzz") });

    results in:

     timethis 20:  7 wallclock secs ( 6.82 usr +  0.00 sys =  6.82 CPU) @  2.93/s (n=20)

    Answer: fuzzy matching is slower than exact matching due to having to
    calculate Levenshtein distance. But if you find fuzzy matching too slow
    using the default pure-perl implementation, you might want to install
    Text::Levenshtein::Flexible (an optional prereq) to speed up fuzzy
    matching. After Text::Levenshtein::Flexible is installed:

     timethis 20:  1 wallclock secs ( 1.04 usr +  0.00 sys =  1.04 CPU) @ 19.23/s (n=20)

ENVIRONMENT

 COMPLETE_UTIL_TRACE => bool

    If set to true, will display more log statements for debugging.

 COMPLETE_UTIL_LEVENSHTEIN => str ('pp'|'xs'|'flexible')

    Can be used to force which Levenshtein distance implementation to use.
    pp means the included PP implementation, which is the slowest (1-2
    orders of magnitude slower than XS implementations), xs which means
    Text::Levenshtein::XS, or flexible which means
    Text::Levenshtein::Flexible (performs best).

    If this is not set, the default is to use Text::Levenshtein::Flexible
    when it's available, then fallback to the included PP implementation.

SEE ALSO

    Complete

    If you want to do bash tab completion with Perl, take a look at
    Complete::Bash or Getopt::Long::Complete or Perinci::CmdLine.

    Other Complete::* modules.

    Bencher::Scenarios::CompleteUtil