Inconsistent Query Results Based on Output Fields Selection in Milvus Dashboard

**题意:**在Milvus仪表盘中基于输出字段选择的不一致查询结果

问题背景:

I'm experiencing an issue with the Milvus dashboard where the search results change based on the selected output fields.

I'm working on a RAG project using text data converted into embeddings, stored in a Milvus collection with around 8000 elements. Last week, my retrieval results matched my expectations ("good" results), however, this week, the results have degraded ("bad" results).

I found that when I exclude the embeddings_vector field from the output fields in the Milvus dashboard, I get the "good" results; Including the embeddings_vector field in the output changes the results to "bad".

I've attached two screenshots showing the difference in the results based on the selected output fields.

Any ideas on what's causing this or how to fix it?

Environment:

Python 3.11 pymilvus 2.3.2 llama_index 0.8.64

Thanks in advance!

python 复制代码
from llama_index.vector_stores import MilvusVectorStore
from llama_index import ServiceContext, VectorStoreIndex

# Some other lines..

# Setup for MilvusVectorStore and query execution
vector_store = MilvusVectorStore(uri=MILVUS_URI,
                                 token=MILVUS_API_KEY,
                                 collection_name=collection_name,
                                 embedding_field='embeddings_vector',
                                 doc_id_field='chunk_id',
                                 similarity_metric='IP',
                                 text_key='chunk_text')

embed_model = get_embeddings()
service_context = ServiceContext.from_defaults(embed_model=embed_model, llm=llm)
index = VectorStoreIndex.from_vector_store(vector_store=vector_store, service_context=service_context)
query_engine = index.as_query_engine(similarity_top_k=5, streaming=True)

rag_result = query_engine.query(prompt)

Here is the "good" result: "good" result And here is the "bad" result: "bad" result

问题解决:

I would like to suggest you to follow below considerations.

  • Ensure that your Milvus collection is correctly indexed. Indexing plays a crucial role in how search results are retrieved and ordered. If the index configuration has changed or is not optimized, it might affect the retrieval quality.
  • In your screenshots, the consistency level is set to "Bounded". Try experimenting with different consistency levels (e.g., "Strong" or "Eventually") to see if it impacts the results. Consistency settings can influence the real-time availability of the indexed data.
  • Review the query parameters, especially the similarity_metric. Since you're using IP (Inner Product) as the similarity metric, ensure that your embedding vectors are normalized correctly. Inner Product search works best with normalized vectors.
  • Verify that the embedding vectors are of consistent quality and scale. If there were changes in the embedding model or preprocessing steps, it could lead to variations in the search results.
  • The inclusion of the embeddings_vector field in the output might affect the way Milvus scores and ranks the results. It's possible that returning the raw embeddings affects the internal ranking logic. Ensure that including this field does not inadvertently alter the search behavior.
  • Check the Milvus server logs and performance metrics to identify any anomalies or changes in the search behavior. This might provide insights into why the results differ when the embeddings_vector field is included.
  • Ensure that there are no version mismatches between the client (pymilvus) and the Milvus server. Sometimes, discrepancies between versions can cause unexpected behavior.
  • As a last resort, try modifying your code to exclude the embeddings_vector field programmatically during retrieval and compare the results. This can help isolate whether the issue is indeed caused by including the embeddings in the output.
  • Please try out this code if it helps.
相关推荐
哥不是小萝莉13 分钟前
AI 应用落地:原理、架构与工程实践
ai
_itgo1 小时前
LangGraph 主要3 种核心模式
ai·langchain·langgraph
Muscleheng3 小时前
SpringBoot 集成 DeepSeek 实现 RAG 文档问答
java·spring boot·ai·springai
ddshub_cc5 小时前
2026 AI API 定价对比:GPT-5.6 vs Claude Fable 5 vs Opus 5,哪款模型最划算?
人工智能·gpt·ai·chatgpt
wang_yb8 小时前
用方差阈值过滤掉“惰性特征”
python·ai·databook
阿沐沐,10 小时前
Codex CLI 沙箱与审批配置:从 workspace-write 扩展可写目录和命令网络权限
gpt·ai·chatgpt·ai编程
郝同学今天有进步吗11 小时前
构建 LangGraph Code Review Agent(七):实现规则匹配、Finding Guardrails 与 Markdown 报告
python·ai·fastapi·code review
xuhe211 小时前
一劳永逸!解决 AutoDL 系统盘(30GB)爆满与 pip 缓存迁移
linux·python·ai·jupyter
清泓y12 小时前
深度学习算法
算法·ai·语言模型·面试
sugar__salt12 小时前
向量数据库从零到实战:用 Milvus + Zilliz 构建 AI 日记语义检索系统
数据库·人工智能·embedding·milvus·rag·zilliz