rum VS pgvector

the rum index has worked well for us on roughly 1TB of pdfs. written by postgrespro, same folks who wrote core text search and json indexing. not sure why rum not in core. we have no problems.

   https://github.com/postgrespro/rum

If you need ranking, and you have the possibility to install PostgreSQL extensions, then you can consider an extension providing RUM indexes: https://github.com/postgrespro/rum. Otherwise, you'll have to use an "external" FTS engine like ElasticSearch.

>Reduce the memory usage of prepared queries

Yes query plan reuse like every other db, this still blows me away PG replans every time unless you explicitly prepare and that's still per connection.

Better full-text scoring is one for me that's missing in that list, TF/IDF or BM25 please see: https://github.com/postgrespro/rum

for postgres, i highly recommend the rum index over the core fts. rum is written by postgrespro, who also wrote core fts and json indexing in pg.

    https://github.com/postgrespro/rum

My experience with Postgres FTS (did a comparison with Elastic a couple years back), is that filtering works fine and is speedy enough, but ranking crumbles when the resulting set is large.

If you have a large-ish data set with lots of similar data (4M addresses and location names was the test case), Postgres FTS just doesn't perform.

There is no index that helps scoring results. You would have to install an extension like RUM index (https://github.com/postgrespro/rum) to improve this, which may or may not be an option (often not if you use managed databases).

If you want a best of both worlds, one could investigate this extensions (again, often not an option for managed databases): https://github.com/matthewfranglen/postgres-elasticsearch-fd...

Either way, writing something that indexes your postgres database into elastic/opensearch is a one time investment that usually pays off in the long run.

Mandatory mention of the RUM extension (https://github.com/postgrespro/rum) if this caught your eye. Lots of tutorials and conference presentations out there showcasing the advantages in terms of ranking, timestamps...

You might be just fine adding an unindexed tsvector column, since you've already filtered down the results.

The GIN indexes for FTS don't really work in conjunction with other indices, which is why https://github.com/postgrespro/rum exists. Luckily, it sounds like you can use your existing indices to filter and let postgres scan for matches on the tsvector.

We have been bitten by the same behavior. I gave a talk with a friend about this exact topic (diagnosing GIN pending list updates) at PGCon 2019 in Ottawa[1][2].

What you need to know is that the pending list will be merged with the main b-tree during several operations. Only one of them is so extremely critical for your insert performance - that is during actual insert. Both vacuum and autovacuum (including autovacuum analyze but not direct analyze) will merge the pending list. So frequent autovacuums are the first thing you should tune. Merging on insert happens when you exceed the gin_pending_list_limit. In all cases it is also interesting to know which memory parameter is used to rebuild the index as that inpacts how long it will take: work_mem (when triggered on insert), autovacuum_work_mem (when triggered during autovauum) and maintainance_work_mem (triggered by a call to gin_clean_pending_list()) define how much memory can be used for the rebuild.

What you can do is:

- tune the size of the pending list (like you did)

- make sure vacuum runs frequently

- if you have a bulk insert heavy workload (ie. nightly imports), drop the index and create it after inserting rows (not always makes sense business wise, depends on your app)

- disable fastupdate, you pay a higher cost per insert but remove the fluctuctuation when the merge needs to happen

The first thing was done in the article. However I believe the author still relies on the list being merged on insert. If vacuums were tuned agressively along with the limit (vacuums can be tuned per table). Then the list would be merged out of bound of ongoing inserts.

I also had the pleasure of speaking with one main authors of GIN indexes (Oleg Bartunov) during the mentioned PGCon. He gave probably the best solution and informed me to "just use RUM indexes". RUM[3] indexes are like GIN indexes, without the pending list and with faster ranking, faster phrase searches and faster timestamp based ordering. It is however out of the main postgresql release so it might be hard to get it running if you don't control the extensions that are loaded to your Postgres instance.

[1] - wideo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brt41xnMZqo&t=1s

[2] - slides https://www.pgcon.org/2019/schedule/attachments/541_Let's%20...

[3] - https://github.com/postgrespro/rum

I suggest to have a look at https://github.com/postgrespro/rum if you haven’t yet. It solves the issue of slow ranking in PostgreSQL FTS.

# Install Postgres and pgvector !apt-get update && apt install postgresql postgresql-server-dev-14 !git clone --branch v0.6.2 https://github.com/pgvector/pgvector.git !cd pgvector && make && make install # Start database !service postgresql start !sudo -u postgres psql -U postgres -c "ALTER USER postgres PASSWORD 'pass';"

When talking about Vector Databases, in the market we can find the specialized ones and multi-model, most of the major database providers like Oracle, PostgreSQL or MongoDB, for mention some of them, have integrated a specific solution to retrieve vector data.

For this example, I wanted to focus on how pgvector  – an open-source vector similarity search for Postgres – can be used to identify data similarities that exist in enterprise data.

pgvector supports dense vector search well, but it does not have plan to support sparse vector.

There's an issue in the pgvector repo about someone having several ~10-20million row tables and getting acceptable performance with the right hardware and some performance tuning: https://github.com/pgvector/pgvector/issues/455

I'm in the early stages of evaluating pgvector myself. but having used pinecone I currently am liking pgvector better because of it being open source. The indexing algorithm is clear, one can understand and modify the parameters. Furthermore the database is postgresql, not a proprietary document store. When the other data in the problem is stored relationally, it is very convenient to have the vectors stored like this as well. And postgresql has good observability and metrics. I think when it comes to flexibility for specialized applications, pgvector seems like the clear winner. But I can definitely see pinecone's appeal if vector search is not a core component of the problem/business, as it is very easy to use and scales very easily

The Spring AI project aims to streamline the development of applications that incorporate artificial intelligence functionality without unnecessary complexity. On this example we use features like: Embedding, Prompts, ETL and save all embedding on PGvector(Postgres Vector database)

Official GitHub repository of the pgvector extension

pgvector 0.6.0 was just released and will be available on Supabase projects soon. Again, a special shout out to Andrew Kane and everyone else who worked on parallel index builds.

The pgvector extension adds vector similarity search capabilities to your PostgreSQL database. To use the extension, you have to first create it in your database. You can install the extension, by connecting to your database and running the CREATE EXTENSION command from the psql command prompt: