lucene VS ann-benchmarks

First, a review of the landscape. As said in the introduction, there aren't a ton of good options. Apache Lucene is by far the best traditional search index from a speed, performance and functionality standpoint. It's the base for Elasticsearch/OpenSearch and many other projects. But it requires Java.

https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/10047

2. The Panama Vector API allows CPU's that support it to accelerate vector operations: https://openjdk.org/jeps/438

So this allows fast ANN on Lucene for semantic search!

How did people do this before Lucene supported it? Only through entirely different tools?

Are they forking Lucene or somehow getting the Lucene devs to increase that limit? Because this PR has been open for over a year now: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/11507

Lucene's adaptation of Roaring uses the complement idea on a block-wise basis:

https://github.com/apache/lucene/blob/84cae4f27cfd3feb3bb42d...

Like someone said, it's in locations as specified in the path.data. Depending on sharing and replication, it could be on more than one host. Elastic uses Apache Lucene to store documents, since it's open source, that rabbit hole will welcome research :-)

It is pretty clear to me that Elastic is planning to build their ANN features differently than OpenDistro's k-NN implementation, or other plugins modules that extend Easticsearch in similar ways. They now will build on the Apache Lucene capabilities that were collaboratively built "upstream" by a number of individuals, some that work for Amazon and some that work for Elastic.

From the linked issue, it seemed that they were originally planning to develop this as a proprietary feature of Elasticsearch, without contributing the functionality to Apache Lucene, but then changed direction when the Apache Lucene developers (some of which are currently employed to do such work by Amazon) started to build its approximate nearest neighbor (ANN) vector search capabilities. [1]

It's great to see folks that work for Elastic collaborating and building on what is in Apache Lucene to extend the utility of ANN with Hierarchical Navigable Small World Graphs (HNSW) [2]! From this, I think it should be possible to implement an Open Source version of the functionality with a compatible API, if that is something that OpenSearch users seek.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9004

[2] https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/250

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.