• mhh__ an hour ago

    I still don't like dataframes but oh my God Polars is so much better than pandas.

    I was doing some time series calculations, simple equity price adjustments basically, in Polars and my two thoughts were:

    - WTF, I can actually read the code and test it.

    - it's running so fast it seems like it's broken.

  • banku_brougham 7 hours ago

    Really cool article, I've enjoyed your work for a long time. You might add a note for those jumping into a sqlite implementation, that duckdb reads parquet and launched a few vector similarity functions which cover this use-case perfectly:

    https://duckdb.org/2024/05/03/vector-similarity-search-vss.h...

    • jt_b 6 hours ago

      I have tinkered with using DuckDB as a poor man's vector database for a POC and had great results.

      One thing I'd love to see is being able to do some sort of row group level metadata statistics for embeddings within a parquet file - something that would allow various readers to push predicates down to an HTTP request metadata level and completely avoid loading in non-relevant rows to the database from a remote file - particularly one stored on S3 compatible storage that supports byte-range requests. I'm not sure what the implementation would look like to define sorting the algorithm to organize the "close" rows together, how the metadata would be calculated, or what the reader implementation would look like, but I'd love to be able to implement some of the same patterns with vector search as with geoparquet.

      • jt_b 5 minutes ago

        I thought about this some more and did some research - and found an indexing approach using HNSW, serialized to parquet, and queried from the browser here:

        https://github.com/jasonjmcghee/portable-hnsw

        Opens up efficient query patterns for larger datasets for RAG projects where you may not have the resources to run an expensive vector database

    • intalentive an hour ago

      The problem with Parquet is it’s static. Not good for use cases that involve continuous writes and updates. Although I have had good results with DuckDB and Parquet files in object storage. Fast load times.

      If you host your own embedding model, then you can transmit numpy float32 compressed arrays as bytes, then decode back into numpy arrays.

      Personally I prefer using SQLite with usearch extension. Binary vectors then rerank top 100 with float32. It’s about 2 ms for ~20k items, which beats LanceDB in my tests. Maybe Lance wins on bigger collections. But for my use case it works great, as each user has their own dedicated SQLite file.

      For portability there’s Litestream.

      • jt_b a minute ago

        > The problem with Parquet is it’s static. Not good for use cases that involve continuous writes and updates. Although I have had good results with DuckDB and Parquet files in object storage. Fast load times.

        You can use glob patterns in DuckDB to query remote parquets though to get around this? Maybe break things up using a hive partitioning scheme or similar.

      • stephantul 7 hours ago

        Check out Unum’s usearch. It beats anything, and is super easy to use. It just does exactly what you need.

        https://github.com/unum-cloud/usearch

        • esafak 7 hours ago

          Have you tested it against Lance? Does it do predicate pushdown for filtering?

          • ashvardanian 6 hours ago

            USearch author here :)

            The engine supports arbitrary predicates for C, C++, and Rust users. In higher level languages it’s hard to combine callbacks and concurrent state management.

            In terms of scalability and efficiency, the only tool I’ve seen coming close is Nvidia’s cuVS if you have GPUs available. FAISS HNSW implementation can easily be 10x slower and most commercial & venture-backed alternatives are even slower: https://www.unum.cloud/blog/2023-11-07-scaling-vector-search...

            In this use-case, I believe SimSIMD raw kernels may be a better choice. Just replace NumPy and enjoy speedups. It provides hundreds of hand-written SIMD kernels for all kinds of vector-vector operations for AVX, AVX-512, NEON, and SVE across F64, F32, BF16, F16, I8, and binary vectors, mostly operating in mixed precision to avoid overflow and instability: https://github.com/ashvardanian/SimSIMD

            • stephantul 7 hours ago

              Usearch is a vector store afaik, not a vector db. At least that’s how I use it.

              I haven’t compared it to lancedb, I reached for it here because the author mentioned Faiss being difficult to use and install. usearch is a great alternative to Faiss.

              But thanks for the suggestion, I’ll check it out

          • PaulHoule 2 hours ago

            In 2017 I was working on a model trainer for text classification and sequence labeling [1] that had limited success because the models weren't good enough.

            I have a minilm + pooling + svm classifier which works pretty well for some things (topics, "will I like this article?") but doesn't work so well for sentiment, emotional tone and other things where the order of the words matter. I'm planning to upgrade my current classifier's front end to use ModernBert and add an LSTM-based back end that I think will equal or beat fine-tuned BERT and, more importantly, can be trained reliably with early stopping. I'd like to open source the thing, focused on reliability, because I'm an application programmer at heart.

            I want it to provide an interface which is text-in and labels-out and hide the embeddings from most users but I'm definitely thinking about how to handle them, and there's the worse problem here that the LSTM needs a vector for each token, not each document, so text gets puffed up by a factor of 1000 or so which is not insurmountable (1 MB of training text puffs up to 1 GB of vectors)

            Since it's expensive to compute the embeddings and expensive to store them I'm thinking about whether and how to cache them, considering that I expect to present the same samples to the trainer multiple times and to do a lot of model selection in the process of model development (e.g. what exact shape LSTM to to use) and in the case of end-user training (it will probably try a few models, not least do a shootout between the expensive model and a cheap model)_

            [1] think of a "magic magic marker" which learns to mark up text the same way you do; this could mark "needless words" you could delete from a title, parts of speech, named entities, etc.

            • thomasfromcdnjs 5 hours ago

              Lots of great findings

              ---

              I'm curious if anyone knows whether it is better to pass structured data or unstructured data to embedding api's? If I ask ChatGPT, it says it is better to send unstructured data. (looking at the authors github, it looks like he generated embeddings from json strings)

              My use case is for jsonresume, I am creating embeddings by sending full json versions as strings, but I've been experimenting with using models to translate resume.json's into full text versions first before creating embeddings. The results seem to be better but I haven't seen any concrete opinions on this.

              My understanding is that unstructured data is better because it contains textual/semantic meaning because of natural lanaguage aka

                skills: ['Javascript', 'Python']
              
              is worse than;

                Thomas excels at Javascript and Python
              
              Another question: What if the search was also a json embedding? JSON <> JSON embeddings could also be great?
              • vunderba 3 hours ago

                I'd say the more important consideration is "consistency" between incoming query input and stored vectors.

                I have a huge vector database that gets updated/regenerated from a personal knowledge store (markdown library). Since the user is most likely to input a comparison query in the form of a question "Where does X factor into the Y system?" - I use a small 7b parameter LLM to pregenerate a list of a dozen possible theoretical questions a user might pose to a given embedding chunk. These are saved as 1536 dimension sized embeddings into the vector database (Qdrant) and linked to the chunks.

                The real question you need to ask is - what's the input query that you'll be comparing to the embeddings? If it's incoming as structured, then store structured, etc.

                I've also seen (anecdotally) similarity degradation for smaller chunks as well - so keep that in mind as well.

                • minimaxir 5 hours ago

                  In general I like to send structured data (see the input format here: https://github.com/minimaxir/mtg-embeddings), but the ModernBERT base for the embedding model used here specifically has better benefits implicitly for structured data compared to previous models. That's worth another blog post explaining why.

                • rcarmo 6 hours ago

                  I'm a huge fan of polars, but I hadn't considered using it to store embeddings in this way (I've been fiddling with sqlite-vec). Seems like an interesting idea indeed.

                  • llm_trw 3 hours ago

                    >The second incorrect method to save a matrix of embeddings to disk is to save it as a Python pickle object [...] But it comes with two major caveats: pickled files are a massive security risk as they can execute arbitrary code, and the pickled file may not be guaranteed to be able to be opened on other machines or Python versions. It’s 2025, just stop pickling if you can.

                    Security: absolutely.

                    Portability: who cares? Frameworks move so quickly that unless you carry your whole dependency graph between machines you will not get bit compatible results with even minor version changes. It's a dirty secret that no one seems to want to fix or care about.

                    In short: everything is so fucked that pickle + conda is more than good enough for whatever project you want to serve to >10,000 users.

                    • th24o3j4324234 an hour ago

                      The trouble with Parquet (and columnar storage) in ML is,

                      1. You don't really care too-much about accessing subsets of columns

                      2. You can't easily append stuff to closed Parquet files.

                      3. Batched-row access is presumably slower due to lower cache-hits.

                      It's okay for map-reduce style stuff where this doesn't matter, but in ML these limitations are an annoyance.

                      HDF5 (or Zarr, less portably) solves some/many of these issues but it's not quite a settled affair.

                      • robschmidt90 7 hours ago

                        Nice read. I agree that for a lot of hobby use cases you can just load the embeddings from parquet and compute the similarities in-memory.

                        To find similarity between my blogposts [1] I wanted to experiment with a local vector database and found ChromaDB fairly easy to use (similar to SQLite just a file on your machine).

                        [1] https://staticnotes.org/posts/how-recommendations-work/

                        • dwagnerkc 4 hours ago

                          If you want to try it out. Can lazily load from HF and apply filtering this way.

                            df = (
                              pl.scan_parquet('hf://datasets/minimaxir/mtg-embeddings/mtg_embeddings.parquet')
                              .filter(
                                  pl.col("type").str.contains("Sorcery"),
                                  pl.col("manaCost").str.contains("B"),
                              )
                              .collect()
                          )

                          Polars is awesome to use, would highly recommend. Single node it is excellent at saturating CPUs, if you need to distribute the work put it in a Ray Actor with some POLARS_MAX_THREADS applied depending on how much it saturates a single node.

                          • jtrueb 7 hours ago

                            Polars + Parquet is awesome for portability and performance. This post focused on python portability, but Polars has an easy-to-use Rust API for embedding the engine all over the place.

                            • blooalien 5 hours ago

                              Gotta love stuff that has multiple language bindings. Always really enjoyed finding powerful libraries in Python and then seeing they also have matching bindings for Go and Rust. Nice to have easy portability and cross-language compatibility.

                            • kernelsanderz 7 hours ago

                              For another library that has great performance and features like full text indexing and the ability to version changes I’d recommend lancedb https://lancedb.github.io/lancedb/

                              Yes, it’s a vector database and has more complexity. But you can use it without creating indexes and it has excellent polars and pandas zero copy arrow support also.

                              • daveguy 7 hours ago

                                Since a lot of ML data is stored as parquet, I found this to be a useful tidbit from lancedb's documentation:

                                > Data storage is columnar and is interoperable with other columnar formats (such as Parquet) via Arrow

                                https://lancedb.github.io/lancedb/concepts/data_management/

                                Edit: That said, I am personally a fan of parquet, arrow, and ibis. So many data wrangling options out there it's easy to get analysis paralysis.

                                • esafak 7 hours ago

                                  Lance is made for this stuff; parquet is not.

                                  • 3abiton 5 hours ago

                                    How well does it scale?

                                  • jononor 6 hours ago

                                    At 33k items in memory is quite fast, 10 ms is very responsive. With 10x/330k items given same hardware the expected time is 1 second. That might be too slow for some applications (but not all). Especially if one just does retrieval of a rather small amount of matches, an index will help a lot for 100k++ datasets.

                                    • kipukun 7 hours ago

                                      To the second footnote: you could utilize Polar's lazyframe API to do that cosine similarity in a streaming fashion for large files.

                                      • minimaxir 7 hours ago

                                        That would get around memory limitations but I still think that would be slow.

                                        • kipukun 6 hours ago

                                          You'd be surprised. As long as your query is using Polars natives and not a UDF (which drops it down to Python), you may get good results.

                                      • noahbp 6 hours ago

                                        Wow! How much did this cost you in GPU credits? And did you consider using your MacBook?

                                      • thelastbender12 8 hours ago

                                        This is pretty neat.

                                        IMO a hindrance to this was lack of built-in fixed-size list array support in the Arrow format, until recently. Some implementations/clients supported it, while others didn't. Else, it could have been used as the default storage format for numpy arrays, torch tensors, too.

                                        (You could always store arrays as variable length list arrays with fixed strides and handle the conversion).

                                        • banku_brougham 8 hours ago

                                          Is your example of a float32 number correct, holding 24 ascii char representation? I had thought single-precision gonna be 7 digits and the exponent, sign and exp sign. Something like 7+2+1+1 or 10 char ascii representation? Rather than the 24 you mentioned?

                                          • minimaxir 8 hours ago

                                            It depends on the default print format. The example string I mentioned is pulled from what np.savetxt() does (fmt='%.18e') and there isn't any precision loss in that number. But I admit I'm not a sprintf() guru.

                                            In practice numbers with that much precision is overkill and verbose so tools don't print float32s to that level of precision.

                                            • PaulHoule 7 hours ago

                                              One of the things I remember from my PhD work is that you can do a stupendous number of FLOPs on floating point numbers in the time it takes to serialize/deserialize them to ASCII.

                                            • whinvik 9 hours ago

                                              Since we are talking about an embedded solution shouldn't the benchmark be something like sqlite with a vector extension or lancedb?

                                              • 0cf8612b2e1e 7 hours ago

                                                My natural point of comparison without actually be DuckDB plus their vector search extension.

                                                • minimaxir 9 hours ago

                                                  I mention sqlite + sqlite-vec at the end, noting it requires technical overhead and it's not as easy as read_parquet() and write_parquet().

                                                  I just became aware of lancedb and am looking into that, although from glancing at the README it has similar issues to faiss with regards to usability for casual use, although much better than faiss in that it can work with colocated metadata.

                                                • octernion 4 hours ago

                                                  or you could just use postgres + pgvector? which many apps already have installed by default.

                                                  • WatchDog 4 hours ago

                                                    Parquet is fine and all, but I love the simplicity and simple interoperability of CSV.

                                                    You can save a huge amount of overhead just by base64 encoding the vectors, they aren't exactly human readable anyway.

                                                    I imagine the resulting file would only be approximately 33% larger than the pickle version.