8 ms·
Also worth mentioning that we use quantization extensively: - halfvec (16bit float) for storage - bit (binary vectors) for indexes Which makes the storage cos
by xfalcox 11mo ago
Also worth mentioning that we use quantization extensively:
- halfvec (16bit float) for storage
- bit (binary vectors) for indexes
Which makes the storage cost and on-going performance good enough that we could enable this in all our hosting.
- summarity 11mo agoThat's where it's at. I'm using the 1600D vectors from OpenAI models for findsight.ai, stored SuperBit-quantized. Even without fancy indexing, a full scan (1 search vector -> 5M stored vectors), takes less than 40ms. And with basic binning, it's nearly instant.
- tacoooooooo 11mo agothis is at the expense of precision/recall though isn't it?
- simonw 11mo agoIt still amazes me that the binary trick works. For anyone who hasn't seen it yet: it turns out many embedding vectors of e.g. 1024 floating point numbers can be reduced to a single bit per value that records if it's higher or lower than 0... and in this reduced form much of the embedding math still works! This means you can e.g. filter to the top 100 using extremely memory efficient and fast bit vectors, then run a more expensive distance calculation against those top 100 with the full floating point vectors to pick the top 10.
- FuckButtons 11mo agowhy is this amazing, it’s just a 1 bit lossy compression representation of the original information? If you have a vector in n-dimensional space this is effectively just representing the basis vectors that the original has.
- simonw 11mo agoYou can take 8192 bytes of information (1024 x 32 bit floats) and reduce that to 128 bytes (1024 bits, a 64x reduction in size!) and still get results that are about 95% as good. I find that cool and surprising.
- sa-code 11mo agoI'm with you, it's very satisfying to see a simple technique work well. It's impressive
- computably 11mo ago1024 bits for a hash is pretty roomy. The embedding "just" has to be well-distributed across enough of the dimensions.
- ImPostingOnHN 11mo agoYeah, that's what I was thinking: Did we think 32 bits across each of the 1024 dimensions would be necessary? Maybe 32768 bits is adding unnecessary precision to what is ~1024 bits of information in the first place.
- FuckButtons 11mo agoThat’s a much more interesting question, I wonder if there is a way to put a lower bound on the number of bits you could use?
- xfalcox 11mo agoI was taken back when I saw what was basically zero recall loss in the real world task of finding related topics, by doing the same thing you described where we over capture with binary embeddings, and only use the full (or half) precision on the subset. Making the storage cost of the index 32 times smaller is the difference of being able to offer this at scale without worrying too much about the overhead.
- mfrye0 11mo agoI was going to say the same. We're using binary vectors in prod as well. Makes a huge difference in the indexes. This wasn't mentioned once in the article.