|
|
|
|
|
by edude03
748 days ago
|
|
Thanks for sharing, I like the approach and it makes a lot of sense for the problem space. Especially using existing products vs building/hosting your own. I was however tripped up by this sentence close to the beginning: > we encountered a significant challenge with RAG: relying solely on vector search (even using both dense and sparse vectors) doesn’t always deliver satisfactory results for certain queries. Not to be overly pedantic, but that's a problem with vector similarity, not RAG as a concept. Although the author is clearly aware of that - I have had numerous conversations in the past few months alone of people essentially saying "RAG doesn't work because I use pg_vector (or whatever) and it never finds what I'm looking for" not realizing 1) it's not the only way to do RAG, and 2) there is often a fair difference between the embeddings and the vectorized query, and with awareness of why that is you can figure out how to fix it. https://medium.com/@cdg2718/why-your-rag-doesnt-work-9755726... basically says everything I often say to people with RAG/vector search problems but again, seems like the assembled team has it handled :) |
|
I've seen the whole gamut of RAG implementations as well, and the implementation, specifically prompting and the document search has a lot to do with the end quality.