Robin Linacre
Robin Linacre
Also see https://github.com/moj-analytical-services/splink/blob/8029a59391fdd2ae07007e576b002616493d86d0/splink/find_matches_to_new_records.py#L21
@RobinL note to self I think this can now be closed but need to check
Has been fixed in splink4
Been trying to get my head around this - not sure I fully understand, but is this a possible solution: ``` import splink.comparison_level_library as cll from splink.column_expression import ColumnExpression comparison_level...
Thanks for the report What do you get if you run this? ```python from splink.datasets import splink_datasets from splink.duckdb.linker import DuckDBLinker import altair as alt from splink.duckdb.comparison_library import exact_match import...
I think i'm reasonably happy with the above proposal - composition using `AND` seems fairly intuitive to me. The only bit I'm not sure of is how to deal with...
I guess it could also be built into `LiteralMatchLevel` as an arg ``` cll.LiteralMatchLevel( ColumnExpression("dob").substr(6, 4), literal_value="01-01", side_of_comparison="left", literal_type='string' ), ```
Right - nice spot - so it's a consequence of tables (results) in SQL being inherently unordered (unless an ORDER BY is specified) as opposed to anything to do with...
Closed by https://github.com/moj-analytical-services/splink/pull/2281
Yes - it hadn't occurred to me the solution might be that simple - but if it is, that sounds like a sensible solution to me