This site uses different types of cookies, including analytics and functional cookies (its own and from other sites). To change your cookie settings or find out more, click here. If you continue browsing our website, you accept these cookies.
Spoiler: I've attached the solution workflow to the On Demand Intermediate Fuzzy Matching. I've modified this to add an alternate solution; color coded for ease of reading. Both solutions are sorted prior to "browse tool," to make comparison easier.
The Calgary file already has a fuzzy match key, and the "Input" also generates the fuzzy match key for us. We need only join these together and we're done: in the end, the resulting output from the alternate solution is virtually identical to the output from the much-more-complex provided solution. So the question is - what am I missing? Why all the complexity in the provided solution?
Thanks for catching this. The data files and the solution are incorrect as there should actually be about 46 possible matches. We will update the files on the Self-Paced training web site. As soon as the files are updated, I'll let you know.
Thanks - I can definitely spot where and how the solution is giving more useful (and different) results, compared to my simpler (and possibly too simplistic) "generate keys-then-join-on-keys" approach.