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
奇牙coding12314 小时前
gpt-5.6-luna 频繁 429 但 gpt-5.5 正常怎么办?不是配额问题,是 luna 独立的并发 session 限速桶
gpt·ai
安逸sgr14 小时前
AI 应用怎么评测?离线评测、人工评估和线上反馈如何结合?
人工智能·ai·大模型·agent·智能体
DS随心转插件15 小时前
Grok生成的html怎么导出——AI导出鸭:大模型结构化输出的“最后一公里”工程化解构
前端·人工智能·ai·html·豆包·deepseek·ai导出鸭
GHL28427109015 小时前
Skill学习
学习·ai
TechEdu20260616 小时前
[人工智能]Claude、GPT、Gemini、Copilot与Llama:概念、架构、应用与评估
人工智能·ai·llm
长谷深风11116 小时前
为什么你的 Tool 总被模型选错?
java·大数据·ai·llm·ai agent·工具设计·agent设计
Patrick在香港16 小时前
Claude Agent 进阶:4 种工具调用编排模式,让 0820 那 13 个 endpoint 并行起来
python·ai·ai编程
MicrosoftReactor17 小时前
技术速递|GitHub Copilot App 入门指南:管理你的工作
ai·github·copilot·agent
码士集团小青17 小时前
细拆DeepSeek Harness设计思路以及未来定位
ai
深念Y17 小时前
为什么选 MiniClaude:一个精简开源替代方案的选型过程
ai·开源·开源软件·agent·claude·workflow·claudecode