DEV Community

Marcus Feldman
Marcus Feldman

Posted on

My Deep Dive into Vector Database Tradeoffs

As an engineer building RAG systems since 2020, I’ve wrestled with a persistent problem: scaling vector search without operational nightmares. Here’s what I’ve learned after testing multiple architectures—including rebuilding production systems from scratch.

The Infrastructure Gap I Encountered

Early projects used Elasticsearch hacks and FAISS glued to Redis. While functional for small datasets (<1M vectors), they failed at scale:

  • 10M vectors caused 8× slower query latency
  • Schema changes required full re-indexing
  • No native support for metadata filtering

This forced manual sharding, which doubled DevOps overhead. What we needed was purpose-built infrastructure—not workarounds.

Architecture Choices That Mattered

After benchmarking tools, I focused on three critical layers:

Layer Requirement Tradeoffs
Storage Decoupled from compute Faster scaling but adds network hop latency
Index Auto-tuning for data drift Saves engineering time, sacrifices fine-grained control
Consistency Session-level guarantees Balanced accuracy and throughput

Session consistency became crucial for our RAG pipelines. For example:

  • Using STRONG consistency after writes prevented stale results but added 40ms overhead
  • EVENTUAL consistency boosted throughput by 3× but risked returning outdated vectors

This Python snippet shows how we validated consistency:

# Test eventual vs strong consistency  
from pymilvus import connections, Collection, utility  

conn = connections.connect(alias="default", host='localhost', port='19530')  
coll = Collection("my_rag_collection")  

# Insert new vector  
coll.insert([[new_embedding], [metadata]])  

# Immediate search with EVENTUAL  
res = coll.search(queries, consistency="EVENTUAL") # 20% stale results  

# Strong consistency wait  
utility.wait_for_loading(coll)  
res = coll.search(queries, consistency="STRONG") # Correct but 48ms slower
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Deployment Realities You Can’t Ignore

In our 3-node Kubernetes cluster (AWS c5.4xlarge):

  • Self-hosted OSS: 45-minute setup but required tweaking query_node.yaml for optimal shard distribution
  • Managed service: Reduced ops work by 70% but introduced $0.02/query cost at peak loads

Unexpected findings:

  • Memory spikes during bulk indexing crashed nodes until we capped mem_ratio: 0.7
  • SSDs outperformed NVMe for large datasets (>50M vectors) due to sequential read patterns

Where I’d Use Different Consistency Models

Based on data from our legal document search system:

  • Transactional workloads: STRONG consistency (e.g., fraud detection)
  • Async analytics: EVENTUAL (e.g., recommendation batch jobs)
  • Hybrid approach: BOUNDED staleness with 5s window balanced both

Misusing consistency causes subtle bugs: One team used EVENTUAL for real-time inventory checks—resulting in 15% oversell errors.

What’s Next for My Testing

I’m exploring two emerging patterns:

Vector data lakes for cold datasets (>100M vectors):

   # Prototype using S3-parquet + PySpark  
   df = spark.read.parquet("s3://vectors/")  
   df.filter("distance < 0.3") # Filters before full search
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Initial tests show 60% lower storage costs but 3-5× slower queries.

Hybrid scalar/vector indexing to optimize metadata-heavy searches

If you’ve tackled similar challenges, I’d appreciate hearing your war stories. My next piece will cover failure recovery in distributed ANN systems—reach out if you have horror stories to share.

Top comments (0)