faiss VS hdbscan

Or just use FAISS https://github.com/facebookresearch/faiss

You can try txtai (https://github.com/neuml/txtai) with a Faiss backend.

This Faiss wiki article might help (https://github.com/facebookresearch/faiss/wiki/Indexing-1G-v...).

For example, a partial Faiss configuration with 4-bit PQ quantization and only using 5% of the data to train an IVF index is shown below.

faiss={"components": "IVF,PQ384x4fs", "sample": 0.05}

If you want to experiment with vector stores, you can do that locally with something like faiss which has good platform support: https://github.com/facebookresearch/faiss

Doing full retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and getting LLMs to interpret the results has more steps but you get a lot of flexibility, and there's no standard best-practice. When you use a vector DB you get the most similar texts back (or an index integer in the case of faiss), you then feed those to an LLM like a normal prompt.

The codifer for the RAG workflow is LangChain, but their demo is substantially more complex and harder-to-use than even a homegrown implementation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36725982

According to this documentation page, faiss-gpu is only supported on Linux, not on Windows.

Indexes for vector databases in high dimensions are nowhere near are effective as the 2-d indexes used in GIS or the 1-d B-tree indexes that are commonly used in databases.

Back around 2005 I was interested in similarity search and read a lot of conference proceedings on the top and was basically depressed at the state of vector database indexes and felt that at least for the systems I was prototyping I was OK with a full scan and later in 2013 I had the assignment of getting a search engine for patents using vector embeddings in front of customers and we got performance we found acceptable with full scan.

My impression today is that the scene is not too different than it was in 2005 but I can't say I haven't missed anything. That is, you have tradeoffs between faster algorithms that miss some results and slower algorithms that are more correct.

I think it's already a competitive business. You have Pinecone which had the good fortune of starting before the gold rush. Many established databases are adding vector extension. I know so many engineering managers who love postgresql and they're just going to load a vector extension and go. My RSS reader YOShInOn uses SBERT embeddings to cluster and classify text and certainly More Like This and semantic search are on the agenda, I'd expect it to take about an hour to get

https://github.com/facebookresearch/faiss

up and working, I could spend more time stuck on some "little" front end problem like getting something to look right in Bootstrap than it would take to get working.

I can totally believe somebody could make a better vector db than what's out there but will it be better enough? A startup going through YC now could spend 2-3 to get a really good product and find customers and that is forever in a world where everybody wants to build AI applications right now.

As the size of the codebase grows, storing and searching through embeddings in memory becomes inefficient. This is where vector databases come into play. Tools like Milvus, Faiss, and others are designed to handle large-scale vector data and provide efficient similarity search capabilities. I've wrtten about how to also use sqlite to store vector embeddings. By integrating a vector database, you can scale your code search tool to handle much larger codebases without compromising on search speed.

But FAISS has their own version ("FastScan") https://github.com/facebookresearch/faiss/wiki/Fast-accumula...

https://github.com/facebookresearch/faiss

Not a model, but I would use this Dense Passage Retrieval for Open Domain QA simply fine-tuning two BERT models, one for questions and one for queries, and then fine-tuning using contrastive loss between positive key/value pairs of document embeddings (the [CLS]) token. You can then use a vector database (Like Faiss, Elasticsearch, Vespa or similar) for querying the question.

A number of excellent topic modeling libraries exist in Python today. BERTopic and Top2Vec are two of the most popular. Both use sentence-transformers to encode data into vectors, UMAP for dimensionality reduction and HDBSCAN to cluster nodes.

Working in spatial data science, I rarely find applications where k-means is the best tool. The problem is that it is difficult to know how many clusters you can expect on maps. Is it 5, 500, or 10,000? Here HDBSCAN [1] shines because it will cluster _and_ select the most suitable number of clusters, to cut the single linkage cluster tree.

[1]: https://github.com/scikit-learn-contrib/hdbscan

You might be interested in HDBSCAN which has several implementations, but the python implelementation is commonly used. That implementation makes use of algorithmic changes to significantly improve the computational complexity. Some more recent variations on that include the gamma-linkage variant which is quite powerful.

The OPTICS algorithm is in the latest versions of sklearn and is a reasonable alternative to DBSCAN -- it has much the same theoretical foundation, but can cope with variable density clusters better. If you are willing to step outside sklearn itself there is also HDBSCAN which is a hierarchical clustering version of DBSCAN and is in sklearn-contrib so should be compatible with an sklearn pipeline.

Maybe use (H)DBScan which I think should work also for huge datasets. I don't think there is a ready to use clustering with unbuild cosine similarily metrics, and you also won't be able to precompute the 100k X 100k dense similarity matrix. The only way to go on this is to L2 normalize your embeddings, then the dot product will be the angular distance as a proxy to the cosine similarily. See also https://github.com/scikit-learn-contrib/hdbscan/issues/69