Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by serjester 425 days ago
Chunking is less important in the long context era with most people just pulling in top 20 K. You obviously don’t want to butcher it, but you’ve got a lot of room for error.
4 comments

Yeah exactly

We still want chunking in practice to avoid LLM confusion, undifferentiated embeddings, and handling large datasets at lower cost + large volumes. Large context means we can now tolerate multi-paragraph/page, so more like chunk by coherent section.

In theory we can do entire chapter/book, but those other concerns come in, so I only see more niche tools or talk-to-your-PDF do that.

At the same time, embedding is often a significant cost in above scenarios, so I'm curious about the semantic chunking overheads..

In our use-case we have many gigabytes of PDFs that contain some qualitative data but also many pages of inline pdf tables. In an ideal world we’d be “compressing” those embedded tables into some text that says “there’s a table here with these columns, if you want to analyze it you can use this <tool>, but basically the table is talking about X, here are the relevant stats like mean, sum, cardinality.”

In the naive chunking approach, we would grab random sections of line items from these tables because they happen to reference some similar text to the search query, but there’s no guarantee the data pulled into context is complete.

Trueish - for orgs that can't use API models for regulatory or security reasons, or that just need really efficient high throughput models, setting up your own infra for long context models can still be pretty complicated and expensive. Careful chunking and thoughtful design of the RAG system often still matters a lot in that context.
“Performance is less important in an era of multi-core CPUs.”