jeff/nucleo
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/solaeus/nucleo.git synced 2024-12-22 01:47:49 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

doc: Fix misspelling of nucleo (#11)

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Ivan Enderlin 2023-08-16 15:43:22 +02:00 committed by GitHub
parent 272f2bc971
commit 685e699bc5
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 3 additions and 3 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

6
README.md
View File

@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
# Nucleo # Nucleo
> Disclaimer: An 0.1 version has been published to crates.io. > Disclaimer: An 0.1 version has been published to crates.io.
> This allows us to merge the `nulceo` integration into helix. > This allows us to merge the `nucleo` integration into helix.
> However, the public API is not yet final and will likely > However, the public API is not yet final and will likely
> change quite a bit in the next release. The documentation > change quite a bit in the next release. The documentation
> is also not yet complete > is also not yet complete
@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
`nucleo` uses the exact **same scoring system as fzf**. That means you should get the same ranking quality (or better) as you are used to from fzf. However, `nucleo` has a more faithful implementation of the Smith-Waterman algorithm which is normally used in DNA sequence alignment (see https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ckingsf/bioinfo-lectures/gaps.pdf) with two separate matrices (instead of one like fzf). This means that `nucleo` finds the optimal match more often. For example if you match `foo` in `xf foo` `nucleo` will match `x__foo` but `fzf` will match `xf_oo` (you can increase the word length the result will stay the same). The former is the more intuitive match and has a higher score according to the ranking system that both `nucleo` and fzf. `nucleo` uses the exact **same scoring system as fzf**. That means you should get the same ranking quality (or better) as you are used to from fzf. However, `nucleo` has a more faithful implementation of the Smith-Waterman algorithm which is normally used in DNA sequence alignment (see https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ckingsf/bioinfo-lectures/gaps.pdf) with two separate matrices (instead of one like fzf). This means that `nucleo` finds the optimal match more often. For example if you match `foo` in `xf foo` `nucleo` will match `x__foo` but `fzf` will match `xf_oo` (you can increase the word length the result will stay the same). The former is the more intuitive match and has a higher score according to the ranking system that both `nucleo` and fzf.
**Compared to `skim`** (and the `fuzzy-matcher` crate) `nucleo` has an even larger performance advantage and is often around **six times faster** (see benchmarks below). Furthermore, the bonus system used by nucleo and fzf is (in my opinion) more consistent/superior. `nulceo` also handles non-ascii text much better. (`skim`s bonus system and even case insensitivity only work for ASCII). **Compared to `skim`** (and the `fuzzy-matcher` crate) `nucleo` has an even larger performance advantage and is often around **six times faster** (see benchmarks below). Furthermore, the bonus system used by nucleo and fzf is (in my opinion) more consistent/superior. `nucleo` also handles non-ascii text much better. (`skim`s bonus system and even case insensitivity only work for ASCII).
Nucleo also handles Unicode graphemes more correctly. `Fzf` and `skim` both operate on Unicode code points (chars). That means that multi codepoint graphemes can have weird effects (match multiple times, weirdly change the score, ...). `nucleo` will always use the first codepoint of the grapheme for matching instead (and reports grapheme indices, so they can be highlighted correctly). Nucleo also handles Unicode graphemes more correctly. `Fzf` and `skim` both operate on Unicode code points (chars). That means that multi codepoint graphemes can have weird effects (match multiple times, weirdly change the score, ...). `nucleo` will always use the first codepoint of the grapheme for matching instead (and reports grapheme indices, so they can be highlighted correctly).
@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ The name also indicates its close relationship with the *helix* editor (sticking
<!-- Furthermore, `nucleo` also features fully lock-free multithreaded streaming so if used as a library its possible to performantly scale streaming to a practically unlimited number of producer threads (for example running `ignore` or `jwalk` across all cores) without any buffering or other additional logic. --> <!-- Furthermore, `nucleo` also features fully lock-free multithreaded streaming so if used as a library its possible to performantly scale streaming to a practically unlimited number of producer threads (for example running `ignore` or `jwalk` across all cores) without any buffering or other additional logic. -->
The fuzzy matching algorithm is based on the `Smith-Waterman` (with affine gaps) as described in https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ckingsf/bioinfo-lectures/gaps.pdf (TODO: explain). `Nulceo` faithfully implements this algorithm and therefore has two separate matrices. However, by precomputing the next `m-matrix` row we can avoid storing the p-matrix at all and instead just store the value in a variable as we iterate the row. The fuzzy matching algorithm is based on the `Smith-Waterman` (with affine gaps) as described in https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ckingsf/bioinfo-lectures/gaps.pdf (TODO: explain). `Nucleo` faithfully implements this algorithm and therefore has two separate matrices. However, by precomputing the next `m-matrix` row we can avoid storing the p-matrix at all and instead just store the value in a variable as we iterate the row.
Nucleo also never really stores the `m-matrix` instead we only ever store the current row (which simultaneously serves as the next row). During index calculation a full matrix is however required to backtrack which indices were actually matched. We only store two bools here (to indicate where we came from in the matrix). Nucleo also never really stores the `m-matrix` instead we only ever store the current row (which simultaneously serves as the next row). During index calculation a full matrix is however required to backtrack which indices were actually matched. We only store two bools here (to indicate where we came from in the matrix).