HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

lunaticd

no profile record

Submissions

Optimizing RAG to Search PubMed Articles in Milliseconds Instead of Minutes

domluna.com
2 points·by lunaticd·2 anni fa·0 comments

Approximate Binary Vector Search for RAG in Julia

domluna.com
1 points·by lunaticd·2 anni fa·0 comments

Exact binary vector search for RAG in 100 lines of Julia

domluna.com
180 points·by lunaticd·2 anni fa·23 comments

Generative AI vs. AWS Textract – A Case for GPT Wrappers

domluna.com
1 points·by lunaticd·2 anni fa·1 comments

LLMs can dream of electric sheep, but can they add?

domluna.com
4 points·by lunaticd·2 anni fa·0 comments

Take1 – An Exploration into LLM Writing

domluna.com
1 points·by lunaticd·3 anni fa·0 comments

Counting NanoGPT FLOPs in PyTorch

domluna.com
1 points·by lunaticd·3 anni fa·0 comments

Show HN: DataGPTd – Making data analysis as easy as asking a question

datagptd.com
2 points·by lunaticd·3 anni fa·0 comments

Grokking

domluna.com
122 points·by lunaticd·3 anni fa·29 comments

comments

lunaticd
·2 anni fa·discuss
3. The project started under a Harvard affiliated Github org during the course of PhDs. These same people later joined Google where it continued to be developed and over time adopted more and more in place of TensorFlow.
lunaticd
·2 anni fa·discuss
i did it does a ton of allocations, which is why i made a simple maxheap implementation and then sort the final result
lunaticd
·2 anni fa·discuss
please make it even faster!
lunaticd
·2 anni fa·discuss
it doesn't seem to have better support for things like xor and count_ones. I believe the main use case is comparisons.
lunaticd
·2 anni fa·discuss
julia> @code_typed hamming_distance(Int8(33), Int8(125)) CodeInfo( 1 ─ %1 = Base.xor_int(x1, x2)::Int8 │ %2 = Base.ctpop_int(%1)::Int8 │ %3 = Base.sext_int(Int64, %2)::Int64 │ nothing::Nothing └── return %3 ) => Int64

julia> @code_llvm hamming_distance(Int8(33), Int8(125)) ; Function Signature: hamming_distance(Int8, Int8) ; @ /Users/lunaticd/code/tiny-binary-rag/rag.jl:13 within `hamming_distance` define i64 @julia_hamming_distance_16366(i8 signext %"x1::Int8", i8 signext %"x2::Int8") #0 { top: ; @ /Users/lunaticd/code/tiny-binary-rag/rag.jl:14 within `hamming_distance` ; ┌ @ int.jl:373 within `xor` %0 = xor i8 %"x2::Int8", %"x1::Int8" ; └ ; ┌ @ int.jl:415 within `count_ones` %1 = call i8 @llvm.ctpop.i8(i8 %0) ; │┌ @ int.jl:549 within `rem` %2 = zext i8 %1 to i64 ; └└ ret i64 %2 }

it lowers to the machine instruction now.

I also tried 8 Int64s vs 64 Int8s and it doesn't seem to make a difference when doing the search.

EDIT: apologize for the formatting
lunaticd
·2 anni fa·discuss
exact in this case means that all the vectors are compared against the query vector. Where as other search methods such as HNSW are approximate searches.
lunaticd
·2 anni fa·discuss
author here. I thought there might be a machine instruction for this but wasn't sure, I also didn't know Julia had a count_ones that counted the 1s.

Thanks! With this the timings are even faster. I'll update the post.