I worked on large scale RAG systems before and can say people vastly underestimate full text search and vastly overestimate embeddings. FTS is really easy, portable and scalable and gets you very far, the 80/20 rule applies. Embeddings appear to be nice and magic but when you really get into them you notice: semantic similarity isn’t as good as you think and certainly it won’t make everyone happy. You will inevitably end up having to re-embed more or different chunks of your text to accommodate more and more precise embedding search - at which point you’ll go the last mile and do reranking etc etc all the while having to support the operational burden of vector search.
Then you turn around and build a search query with 500 keywords and sure it’s painful but it just works, accommodates all use cases, scales and is overall less annoying to maintain.
Can you elaborate? We have technicians searching in different languages. Also our knowledge base is often in different languages. I just don't see how full text search can work? Maybe in a problem space like a wiki where people always know what to search for?
Instinctively this feels like a two phase problem - start with some machine translation into a single spoken language and index that, then when people are querying do the same thing. When returning search results show them in the original language.
Yes we've tried. It works. But jargon is hard. RAG with embeddings works all the same. The LLM doesn't mind receiving sources in Italian, french and German, and then outputting the answer in Japanese while providing the verbatim German jargon term in brackets
The audience for this piece is already very familiar with RAG. I don't want articles discussing e.g. OLED screens telling me what the acronym is - that would be a sign that the article is far below the level that I need.
Here’s an even simpler take: just embed everything the first time, then track what was changed. Use a cheap model to summarize and clean up the documents/chats with summary and keywords. Unless you have entire libraries of books to embed it’s going to be a few hundred dollars of API calls.
Then, throw it all in BigQuery. Handles all the vector stuff natively.
Sprinkle an agentic bot UI thing on top to make it appear all-knowing and magical.
I assume other vendors than Google have a similar batteries-included approach you can just plug in.
This assumes your text is small. Try embedding pdf reports - though luck. It surely won’t fit into most embeddings. I can think of many more examples: books, news articles, medical reports, insurance claims etc. they’re all too big to “index it all at once”
Is anyone else actually finding it harder and harder to read LLM generated text? I find it quite tiring, my brain just does not want to get through it.
It’s largely because LLMs are reaching for many different types of adjectives or verbs in the same sentence, in a jarring way. While embedding it in a confidently declarative sentence. Everything sounds like some profound insight, dialed to an 11, but written as poetry. Especially those headings. With the short sentences.
I would like to see how each recipe performs against its corresponding evals. Some sort of ranking would be useful.
Everyone keeps posting articles about how to implement RAG, but I also wonder why there isn’t some sort of skill to help people create a simple retrieval plan, starting with the retrieval methods and connecting them with evals. This could show whether they actually improve the result and make retrieval simpler for any agent, instead of making people start from zero.
There have been many blogs like this over the last years.
Yes, embeddings are computationally heavy, but they are not at all complicated and they provide a lot of benefit.
90% of "document" based RAG projects should view semantic search with embeddings as their primary method.
It's very powerful and so easy to implement that you could try it out and discover whether performance would be an issue rather than trying to anticipate it.
Embeddings are reasonably simple, but it’s a journey to get there, and I am very proud of the dog-heavy explainer I wrote on them: https://sgnt.ai/p/embeddings-explainer/
Agentic query rewrite on top of good old fashioned Lucene is the end game. This is effectively providing a lot of the same magic you get with the semantic approach. Allowing the agent to query the document store iteratively is where the capabilities become unbounded.
Embeddings and semantic search add non determinism on top of non determinism. This seems fundamentally cursed. Lexical is much easier to control, iterate and debug. The tools are incredibly mature. Your users will probably prefer it as well.
The repo includes also plpgsql_bm25rrf.sql : PL/pgSQL function for hybrid search ( plpgsql_bm25 + pgvector ) with Reciprocal Rank Fusion; and Jupyter notebook examples.
Maybe I'm old but where exactly are the "dragons"?
How is RAG any different from the search systems we've been building before LLMs? Is it the sudden need for everyone to design a search API and engine that's driven this trend?
If so, I'd like to see more design patterns around existing search problems:
- Correcting or backtracking based on feedback.
- Measuring relevance.
- Comparison with task-based pre-written queries. Does every LLM task need a full blown search engine? Why not a tightly scoped domain API for data retrieval?
The whole embedding thing which converts “tokens” to vectors, which you then store in a vector database so that you can later query by vector distance, seems to be LLM specific technology, no? As far as I know the vectors look a lot like the weights in a LLM itself which is why the vector search also works with some level of intelligence.
Vector embeddings predate LLMs. They have been used as far back as the early 2000s. They are a general machine learning technique, rather than LLM specific
i want to ask that, if a user want to search sth, but he doesnt know the exact name(keywords), just some description. at this moment, whether the text serach fail?
The article sounds like AI slop with some predictable tells like short punctual sentences, bizarre jargon, and titles like "Recipe 4: On-The-Fly Embedding (The Fresh Data Play)"
Can we not reward junk like this? Most of the sentences are incomprehensible and provide zero actual argumentation, it's just a list of "whats" with no "whys"
Ok? I'm not seeing how that is interesting, you're exclusively focusing on coding which requires precise substring locations. Google is basically almost entirely driven by embedding models now.
So: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrieval-augmented_generation
Then, throw it all in BigQuery. Handles all the vector stuff natively.
Sprinkle an agentic bot UI thing on top to make it appear all-knowing and magical.
I assume other vendors than Google have a similar batteries-included approach you can just plug in.
This assumes your text is small. Try embedding pdf reports - though luck. It surely won’t fit into most embeddings. I can think of many more examples: books, news articles, medical reports, insurance claims etc. they’re all too big to “index it all at once”
Is anyone else actually finding it harder and harder to read LLM generated text? I find it quite tiring, my brain just does not want to get through it.
Everyone keeps posting articles about how to implement RAG, but I also wonder why there isn’t some sort of skill to help people create a simple retrieval plan, starting with the retrieval methods and connecting them with evals. This could show whether they actually improve the result and make retrieval simpler for any agent, instead of making people start from zero.
Yes, embeddings are computationally heavy, but they are not at all complicated and they provide a lot of benefit.
90% of "document" based RAG projects should view semantic search with embeddings as their primary method.
It's very powerful and so easy to implement that you could try it out and discover whether performance would be an issue rather than trying to anticipate it.
Embeddings and semantic search add non determinism on top of non determinism. This seems fundamentally cursed. Lexical is much easier to control, iterate and debug. The tools are incredibly mature. Your users will probably prefer it as well.
https://github.com/jankovicsandras/plpgsql_bm25 BM25 search implemented in PL/pgSQL ( Unlicense / Public domain )
The repo includes also plpgsql_bm25rrf.sql : PL/pgSQL function for hybrid search ( plpgsql_bm25 + pgvector ) with Reciprocal Rank Fusion; and Jupyter notebook examples.
How is RAG any different from the search systems we've been building before LLMs? Is it the sudden need for everyone to design a search API and engine that's driven this trend?
If so, I'd like to see more design patterns around existing search problems:
- Correcting or backtracking based on feedback.
- Measuring relevance.
- Comparison with task-based pre-written queries. Does every LLM task need a full blown search engine? Why not a tightly scoped domain API for data retrieval?
Where's the new design tension? Indexes always had to be monitored for freshness and queries have always needed cleaning or parsing.
at least to me that seems the same as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word2vec for e.g.
Oh boy...
Can we not reward junk like this? Most of the sentences are incomprehensible and provide zero actual argumentation, it's just a list of "whats" with no "whys"
I find this interesting because practically no one is doing RAG on thier personal data which is something I wouldn’t have expected.