I'm looking for a data structure that supports efficient approximate lookups of keys (e.g., Levenshtein distance for strings), returning the closest possible match for the input key. The best suited data structure I've found so far are Burkhard-Keller trees, but I was wondering if there are other/better data structures for this purpose.

Edit: Some more details of my specific case:

  • Strings usually have a fairly large Levenshtein difference from each other.
  • Strings have a max length of around 20-30 chars, with an average closer to 10-12.
  • I'm more interested in efficient lookup than insertion as I will be building a set of mostly static data that I want to query efficiently.

2 Answers 2


What you are looking for is "approximate near neighbor search" (ANNS) in the Levenshtein/edit distance. From a theoretical perspective, edit distance has so far turned out to be relatively hard for near-neighbor searches, afaik. Still, there are many results, see the references in this Ostrovsky and Rabani paper. If you are willing to consider alternative distance metrics for which there are simpler and better solutions, move on to the next paragraph. For ANNS in edit distance, there is a result due to Indyk, who shows how to build a data structure of size $n^{O(\sqrt{d})}$ that answers any query in time $O(d)$ and reports a string which is at most three times further than the string nearest to the query string (this generalizes to size $n^{O(d^\epsilon)}$ and approximation $3^{1/\epsilon}$). Here $n$ is the number of strings and $d$ is the maximum length of any string. The Ostrovsky and Rabani paper I linked above improve this result by mapping strings to vectors so that the $\ell_1$-distance (a kind of natural geometric distance similar to the euclidean distance) between vectors approximates the edit distance between the corresponding strings (this is called a "low-distortion embedding"). Once this is done, an ANNS data structure for $\ell_1$ can be used, and these turn out to be more efficient (see next paragraph).

If you are willing to consider other distances, then locality sensitive hashing (LSH) does a great job. Locality sensitive hashing is a technique pioneered by Indyk and Motwani for solving the ANNS problem, where points that live in a high-dimensional space (read long vectors, long strings, etc.) are hashed into a small number of buckets so that points that are near each other are mapped to the same bin with good probability and points that are far from each other are mapped to different bins, also with good probability. There is a great and very accessible survey article by Indyk and Andoni in CACM. This technique is simple and fast, and has small space requirements; there is code out there too (I think the article links to the code). It works well for things like Hamming distance (and in certain regimes $\ell_1$ distance) and Euclidean distance, cosine distance. Also, Muthu and Sahinalp design LSH schemes for a very natural generalization of edit distance, the block edit distance (where a some edit operations can operate on a block of symbols).

This kind of question is a good fit for cstheory.SE. There is a related question there, but it seems to ask for exact near neighbor.


The data structures you are interested in are metric trees. That is, they support efficient searches in metric spaces. A metric space is formed by a set of objects and a distance function defined among them satisfying the triangle inequality. The goal is then, given a set of objects and a query element, to retrieve those objects close enough to the query.

Since search problems are literally everywhere in computer science, there is a huge amount of different metric trees. However, they can be divided at least into two groups: pivot-based and clustering based (and surely there are hybrids as well). A good survey is E. Chavez et al., Searching in Metric Spaces, 2001. See for example Chapter 5: Current Solutions to Metric Spaces, page 283.

There, in Table 1, Chavez et al. consider 16 different metric trees. They present space complexity, construction complexity, claimed query complexity and extra CPU query time for each (if known). If you don't care about the construction complexity too much, the query complexity for the BK-tree is $O(n^\alpha)$, where $0 < \alpha < 1$ depending on the range of the search and the structure of the space. Or if you don't have a huge number of elements, have a look at AESA (approximating eliminating search algorithm). It is unacceptedly slow to build and store for huge spaces ($O(n^2)$ time and space), but it has been shown experimentally to have $O(1)$ query time.

Chavez et al. also give a nice overview of the other trees, and naturally more references if any one in particular sparks your interest. In practice, the performance of different trees is often evaluated experimentally. This I think depends a lot on the structure of the space. Therefore it is hard to say which tree in particular would be the most efficient in your case. Nevertheless, I think it is a good idea to go with the easiest one first. If BK-trees are the easiest one to build, try them out first. If they don't satisfy your requirements, invest time (and perhaps programming time) into gathering more facts about your space that could help you make more informed decisions.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.