ann-benchmarks VS google-research

On top of my head, pgvector only supports 2 indexes, those are running in memory only. They don't support GPU indexing, nor Disk based indexing, they also don't have separation of query and insertions.

Also with different people I've talked to, they struggle with scale past 100K-1M vector.

You can also have a look yourself from a performance perspective: https://ann-benchmarks.com/

https://ann-benchmarks.com/ is a good resource covering those libraries and much more.

We utilized the ANN Benchmarks methodology, a standard for benchmarking vector databases. Our tests used the dbpedia dataset of 1,000,000 OpenAI embeddings (1536 dimensions) and inner product distance metric for both Pinecone and pgvector.

Data warehouses are columnar stores. They are very different from row-oriented databases - like Postgres, MySQL. Operations on columns - e.g., aggregations (mean of a column) are very efficient.

Most vector databases use one of a few different vector indexing libraries - FAISS, hnswlib, and scann (google only) are popular. The newer vector dbs, like weaviate, have introduced their own indexes, but i haven't seen any performance difference -

Reference: https://ann-benchmarks.com/

(Blog author here). Thanks for the question. In this case the index for both DiskANN and pgvector HNSW is small enough to fit in memory on the machine (8GB RAM), so there's no need to touch the SSD. We plan to test on a config where the index size is larger than memory (we couldn't this time due to limitations in ANN benchmarks [0], the tool we use).

To your question about RAM usage, we provide a graph of index size. When enabling PQ, our new index is 10x smaller than pgvector HNSW. We don't have numbers for HNSWPQ in FAISS yet.

[0]: https://github.com/erikbern/ann-benchmarks/

In terms of "All You Need" for Vector Search, ANN Benchmarks (https://ann-benchmarks.com/) is a good site to review when deciding what you need. As with anything complex, there often isn't a universal solution.

txtai (https://github.com/neuml/txtai) can build indexes with Faiss, Hnswlib and Annoy. All 3 libraries have been around at least 4 years and are mature. txtai also supports storing metadata in SQLite, DuckDB and the next release will support any JSON-capable database supported by SQLAlchemy (Postgres, MariaDB/MySQL, etc).

pg_vector doesn't perform well compared to other methods, at least according to ANN-Benchmarks (https://ann-benchmarks.com/).

txtai is more than just a vector database. It also has a built-in graph component for topic modeling that utilizes the vector index to autogenerate relationships. It can store metadata in SQLite/DuckDB with support for other databases coming. It has support for running LLM prompts right with the data, similar to a stored procedure, through workflows. And it has built-in support for vectorizing data into vectors.

For vector databases that simply store vectors, I agree that it's nothing more than just a different index type.

The reason https://ann-benchmarks.com is so good, is that we can see a plot of recall vs latency. I can see you have some latency numbers in the leaderboard at the bottom, but it's very difficult to make a decision.

As a practitioner that works with vector databases every day, just latency is meaningless to me, because I need to know if it's fast AND accurate, and what the tradeoff is! You can't have it both ways. So it would be helpful if you showed plots showing this tradeoff, similar to ann-benchmarks.

People on here will be happy to say that I do a similar thing, however my sequence length is dynamic because I also use a 2nd data structure - I'll use pretentious academic speak: I use a simple bigram LM (2-gram) for single next-word likeliness and separately a trie that models all words and phrases (so, n-gram). Not sure how many total nodes because sentence lengths vary in training data, but there are about 200,000 entry points (keys) so probably about 2-10 million total nodes in the default setup.

"Constructing 7-gram LM": They likely started with bigrams (what I use) which only tells you the next word based on 1 word given, and thought to increase accuracy by modeling out more words in a sequence, and eventually let the user (developer) pass in any amount they want to model (https://github.com/google-research/google-research/blob/5c87...). I thought of this too at first, but I actually got more accuracy (and speed) out of just keeping them as bigrams and making a totally separate structure that models out an n-gram of all phrases (e.g. could be a 24-token long sequence or 100+ tokens etc. I model it all) and if that phrase is found, then I just get the bigram assumption of the last token of the phrase. This works better when the training data is more diverse (for a very generic model), but theirs would probably outperform mine on accuracy when the training data has a lot of nearly identical sentences that only change wildly toward the end - I don't find this pattern in typical data though, maybe for certain coding and other tasks there are those patterns though. But because it's not dynamic and they make you provide that number, even a low number (any phrase longer than 2 words) - theirs will always have to do more lookup work than with simple bigrams and they're also limited by that fixed number as far as accuracy. I wonder how scalable that is - if I need to train on occasional ~100-word long sentences but also (and mostly) just ~3-word long sentences, I guess I set this to 100 and have a mostly "undefined" trie.

I also thought of the name "LMJS", theirs is "jslm" :) but I went with simply "next-token-prediction" because that's what it ultimately does as a library. I don't know what theirs is really designed for other than proving a concept. Most of their code files are actually comments and hypothetical scenarios.

I recently added a browser example showing simple autocomplete using my library: https://github.com/bennyschmidt/next-token-prediction/tree/m... (video)

And next I'm implementing 8-dimensional embeddings that are converted to normalized vectors between 0-1 to see if doing math on them does anything useful beyond similarity, right now they look like this:

  [nextFrequency, prevalence, specificity, length, firstLetter, lastLetter, firstVowel, lastVowel]

The change was literally just made: https://github.com/google-research/google-research/commit/4a...

It appears this was in response to Hacker News comments.

There are options such as Google's ScaNN that may let you go farther before needing to consider specialized databases.

https://github.com/google-research/google-research/blob/mast...

I feel it was unnecesary to create this because https://research.google/ already exists? It just seems like they want to take another URL with a "pure" domain name instead of psubdirectories, etc parts.

https://github.com/google-research/google-research/blob/mast...

You could also try some dedicated translation models like https://huggingface.co/facebook/nllb-moe-54b (or https://github.com/google-research/google-research/tree/master/madlad_400 for something smaller) and see how they do.

Google released T5X checkpoints for MADLAD-400 a couple of months ago, but nobody could figure out how to run them. Turns out the vocabulary was wrong, but they uploaded the correct one last week.