Zum Hauptinhalt springen
Echtzeit-Radar & Feeds
Alle RSS Feeds ➔
👥 Community & Social
IT Security NachrichtenWatchGuard AP: Befehlsschmuggel-Lücken und umgehbare Authentifizierung(29.09.2026 um 07:57 Uhr)
••
IT NachrichtenMac mini M6 review: truly mighty but now more pricey(29.09.2026 um 08:00 Uhr)
••••••••
IT Security NachrichtenWatchGuard AP: Befehlsschmuggel-Lücken und umgehbare Authentifizierung(29.09.2026 um 07:57 Uhr)
••
IT NachrichtenMac mini M6 review: truly mighty but now more pricey(29.09.2026 um 08:00 Uhr)
••••••••
Intelligence View
⚡ tsecurity.de Intelligence

RAG debugging is harder than I expected

I've started building a vector database to learn modern vector search for the AI era. In my professional work, I maintain Jepsen/Antithesis tests for distributed databases and blockchain systems. These tests check system correctness…

0
↗ Quelle (dev.to)
Reagiere als Erste:r — dein Feedback zählt!

I've started building a vector database to learn modern vector search for the AI era.



In my professional work, I maintain Jepsen/Antithesis tests for distributed databases and blockchain systems. These tests check system correctness through transactional behaviors under real-world failures.



When working on a vector database, I started wondering:



what does "correctness" even mean in vector search?



By definition, ANN results don't have to exactly match exact search. Some level of approximation is acceptable.



In RAG systems, there are evaluation methods — but most of them focus on the final LLM output.



When something goes wrong, it's hard to tell:




  • was it the retrieval?

  • the prompt?

  • or the model itself?



I wanted to isolate the retrieval layer and understand what actually changed.



I changed the embedding model, but I couldn't clearly tell what changed in retrieval results.



Some queries looked fine. Some felt off. But I had no systematic way to understand the differences.



So instead of trying to judge correctness, I focused on something simpler:



What actually changed?



I built a small tool to diff retrieval results.



https://github.com/yito88/traceowl



It captures, compares, and explains differences in VectorDB search results so you can quickly understand what changed and where to focus your review.



TraceOwl report example



If you're working on RAG or vector search, I'd love to hear how you evaluate changes in your system.

Ähnliche Beiträge
🔍 Verwandte News

Auch interessante Nachrichten RAG debugging is harder than I expected

Thematisch verwandte Begriffe: debugging, harder, than, expected · 6 Treffer

Laden...

Beiträge werden geladen ...

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

Laden...

Beiträge werden geladen ...

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

Laden...

Beiträge werden geladen ...

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

Laden...

Beiträge werden geladen ...

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

💬 Kommentare werden geladen…
Zum Aktualisieren ziehen
ZERO-DAY CVE-2026-101281 | A flaw has been found in Trusted Domain Project OpenDMARC up to 1.4.2. …
Advisory →
tsecurity.de Icon
Offline-Lesen, Eilmeldungen & 0ms Ladezeit

Installiere tsecurity.de direkt auf deinen Home-Bildschirm für das ultimative Vollbild-Magazinerlebnis ohne Browser-Leisten.

Nächster Beitrag