Pgvector 0.4.0 Performance
supabase.com
supabase.com
PS: What about offering Qdrant as an alternative to PG on the supabase platform? Just an idea. :)
ie you can notice that most of results are on the same hardware as in nirantk, and we achieved 7 times better RPS with 0.98 precision on it and 19 times better RPS with 0.91 precision on the same amount of cpu and memory
goal was to compare pgvector with pgvector rather than any other technology
We are "all in" on Postgres, but we could definitely find ways to support qdrant (probably a Wrapper: https://supabase.com/blog/postgres-foreign-data-wrappers-rus...)
this is a response to a recent pgvector vs qdrant benchmark. As we mention in the post, we’re not trying to prove that pgvector is faster than Qdrant. Our goal is to show that pgvector/postgres scales predictably for the workloads that most companies need.
We scale it to ~1800 requests per second with 91% precision in this set of benchmarks. Still, it could be better. Luckily there are quite a few features and improvements planned for v0.5.0 [0]:
- Adding HNSW: an index with better speed & precision than IVFFlat (at a higher memory cost)
- Product quantization: better storage for IVFFLAT, improving speed and recall
- Parallel index builds: building your IVFFLAT indexes will be much faster
[0]: pgvector v0.5: https://github.com/pgvector/pgvector/issues/27would be happy to share details regarding our research and outcomes if you have any questions
Does it just spin up the right number of probes up so the experiments don't include this extra cost of spinning up these probes?
(apologies if this is a dumb question - I don't know enough about vector databases to know if this is a dumb question or not!)
So 0.98 precision would mean that 9.8 out of 10 documents are relevant on average