chore
This commit is contained in:
@@ -1,110 +0,0 @@
|
|||||||
# Issue #159 Performance Analysis - Conclusion
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Problem Summary
|
|
||||||
User reported search times of 15-30 seconds instead of the ~2 seconds mentioned in the paper.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Configuration:**
|
|
||||||
- GPU: 4090×1
|
|
||||||
- Embedding Model: BAAI/bge-large-zh-v1.5 (~300M parameters)
|
|
||||||
- Data Size: 180MB text (~90K chunks)
|
|
||||||
- Backend: HNSW
|
|
||||||
- beam_width: 10
|
|
||||||
- Other parameters: Default values
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Root Cause Analysis
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### 1. **Search Complexity Parameter**
|
|
||||||
The **default `complexity` parameter is 64**, which is too high for achieving ~2 second search times with this configuration.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Test Results (Reproduced):**
|
|
||||||
- **Complexity 64 (default)**: **36.17 seconds** ❌
|
|
||||||
- **Complexity 32**: **2.49 seconds** ✅
|
|
||||||
- **Complexity 16**: **2.24 seconds** ✅ (Close to paper's ~2 seconds)
|
|
||||||
- **Complexity 8**: **1.67 seconds** ✅
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### 2. **beam_width Parameter**
|
|
||||||
The `beam_width` parameter is **mainly for DiskANN backend**, not HNSW. Setting it to 10 has minimal/no effect on HNSW search performance.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### 3. **Embedding Model Size**
|
|
||||||
The paper uses a smaller embedding model (~100M parameters), while the user is using `BAAI/bge-large-zh-v1.5` (~300M parameters). This contributes to slower embedding computation during search, but the main bottleneck is the search complexity parameter.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Solution
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### **Recommended Fix: Reduce Search Complexity**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
To achieve search times close to ~2 seconds, use:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
```python
|
|
||||||
from leann.api import LeannSearcher
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
searcher = LeannSearcher(INDEX_PATH)
|
|
||||||
results = searcher.search(
|
|
||||||
query="your query",
|
|
||||||
top_k=10,
|
|
||||||
complexity=16, # or complexity=32 for slightly better accuracy
|
|
||||||
# beam_width parameter doesn't affect HNSW, can be ignored
|
|
||||||
)
|
|
||||||
```
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Or via CLI:
|
|
||||||
```bash
|
|
||||||
leann search your-index "your query" --complexity 16
|
|
||||||
```
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### **Alternative Solutions**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
1. **Use DiskANN Backend** (Recommended by maintainer)
|
|
||||||
- DiskANN is faster for large datasets
|
|
||||||
- Better performance scaling
|
|
||||||
- `beam_width` parameter is relevant here
|
|
||||||
```python
|
|
||||||
builder = LeannBuilder(backend_name="diskann")
|
|
||||||
```
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
2. **Use Smaller Embedding Model**
|
|
||||||
- Switch to a smaller model (~100M parameters) like the paper
|
|
||||||
- Faster embedding computation
|
|
||||||
- Example: `BAAI/bge-base-zh-v1.5` instead of `bge-large-zh-v1.5`
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
3. **Disable Recomputation** (Trade storage for speed)
|
|
||||||
- Use `--no-recompute` flag
|
|
||||||
- Stores all embeddings (much larger storage)
|
|
||||||
- Faster search (no embedding recomputation)
|
|
||||||
```bash
|
|
||||||
leann build your-index --no-recompute --no-compact
|
|
||||||
leann search your-index "query" --no-recompute
|
|
||||||
```
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Performance Comparison
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| Complexity | Search Time | Accuracy | Recommendation |
|
|
||||||
|------------|-------------|----------|---------------|
|
|
||||||
| 64 (default) | ~36s | Highest | ❌ Too slow |
|
|
||||||
| 32 | ~2.5s | High | ✅ Good balance |
|
|
||||||
| 16 | ~2.2s | Good | ✅ **Recommended** (matches paper) |
|
|
||||||
| 8 | ~1.7s | Lower | ⚠️ May sacrifice accuracy |
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Key Takeaways
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
1. **The default `complexity=64` is optimized for accuracy, not speed**
|
|
||||||
2. **For ~2 second search times, use `complexity=16` or `complexity=32`**
|
|
||||||
3. **`beam_width` parameter is for DiskANN, not HNSW**
|
|
||||||
4. **The paper's ~2 second results likely used:**
|
|
||||||
- Smaller embedding model (~100M params)
|
|
||||||
- Lower complexity (16-32)
|
|
||||||
- Possibly DiskANN backend
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Verification
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The issue has been reproduced and verified. The test script `test_issue_159.py` demonstrates:
|
|
||||||
- Default complexity (64) results in ~36 second search times
|
|
||||||
- Reducing complexity to 16-32 achieves ~2 second search times
|
|
||||||
- This matches the user's reported issue and provides a clear solution
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Next Steps
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
1. ✅ Issue reproduced and root cause identified
|
|
||||||
2. ✅ Solution provided (reduce complexity parameter)
|
|
||||||
3. ⏳ User should test with `complexity=16` or `complexity=32`
|
|
||||||
4. ⏳ Consider updating documentation to clarify complexity parameter trade-offs
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user