How to implement Retrieval-Augmented Generation
How to implement Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Read this blog to learn how to implement Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in 5 simple steps.
Every developer knows the frustration: your LLM confidently states wrong information, your prompts are growing unwieldy, and your retrieval pipelines break every time you add new data. Hallucinations undermine user trust, prompt engineering becomes unmanageable as knowledge scales, and retrieval pipelines are fragile and hard to maintain.
You've probably considered RAG as a solution, but the implementation seems intimidating. Vector databases, embedding models, chunking strategies, re-ranking algorithms: where do you even start?
Here's the good news: RAG doesn't have to be intimidating or complex. This guide shows you how to implement RAG in 5 straightforward steps, complete with clear explanations and example code to get you started fast.
Step 1: Clarify the problem & knowledge scope
Once you know it's time to implement RAG, the first step is to get clarity on what you're building. This step is critical because it shapes every downstream decision about architecture, data processing, and evaluation.
Define these three core elements:
1. What questions your RAG system must answer
Your RAG system isn't a general-purpose search engine, it's a specialized tool for your specific use case. Are you building a customer support bot that needs to answer product questions? A legal assistant that searches through case law? An internal documentation system for your engineering team?
2. What data sources will you ingest
Catalog your knowledge sources: PDFs, web pages, databases, APIs, Slack messages, or support tickets. Each format requires different handling, and some sources update more frequently than others.
3. Constraints that matter
Consider privacy requirements (is PII involved?), latency expectations (real-time vs. batch processing), and update frequency (static documents vs. streaming data).
Pro tip: Write a "North-Star Query". A single, representative question your system must answer perfectly. Use this to keep evaluations focused and avoid scope creep.
Ask yourself these handy questions:
What can't your current LLM answer confidently?
Who owns your data, and how often does it change?
Is PII involved?
Step 2: Ingest & chunk your knowledge base
Raw documents aren't ready for retrieval; they need to be processed, cleaned, and split into semantically complete chunks that your LLM can understand.
Clean & split:
from langchain.text_splitter import RecursiveCharacterTextSplitter splitter = RecursiveCharacterTextSplitter(chunk_size=1024, chunk_overlap=100) docs = splitter.split_documents(raw_docs)
Loading data via format-specific loaders (LangChain, LlamaIndex, or Ducky)
Cleaning and splitting documents into semantically complete chunks
Embedding with models (OpenAI, Cohere, Hugging Face)
Pro tip: ~10% chunk overlap prevents boundary truncation.
Step 3: Index & retrieve relevant chunks
The next step is to index and retrieve relevant chunks.
Approach | Quick start | Hidden costs & trade‑offs |
|---|---|---|
In‑memory prototype (FAISS) | pip install faiss-cpu | Great for hack‑day demos, but everything evaporates when the process restarts. No persistence, hot‑standby, or horizontal scaling; growth is bound by RAM on a single box. |
Roll‑your‑own (Postgres + pgvector) | CREATE EXTENSION pgvector; | Full control comes at the price of ops: capacity planning, schema migrations, index rebuilds, replication lag, backup windows, security patching, and 2 a.m. alerts when recall tanks. |
Reality check before DIY
Sizing – Vector math is memory‑hungry; underestimate and you’ll swap or time out.
Index tuning – Picking ivfflat or hnsw is easy; retuning probes, lists, and ef_search as your corpus grows is not.
Re‑embedding churn – New documents = new embeddings = bulk inserts = index bloat. Plan for reindex jobs and downtime windows.
Observability – Custom Grafana boards for recall, QPS, P95 latency, and heap usage are a must.
High availability – Streaming replication helps, but failover scripts and consistency checks are on you.
Compliance & security – Encryption at rest, role‑based access, audit logging… all manual switches you must remember to flip.
DIY can work, but only if “running a vector database” is a capability you’re keen to own.
Retrieve top‑k (k ≈ 3‑10) by cosine or dot‑product similarity:
similar = vector_store.similarity_search(query, k=4)
Add an optional re‑ranker (e.g., Cohere Rerank, Cross‑Encoder) to sharpen precision for verbose queries.
Step 4: Generate answers with context fusion
Step 4 is to combine the retrieved context with your LLM to generate accurate, grounded responses.
Prompt template – simple but explicit:
You are a helpful assistant for ACME docs. Use ONLY the context below. Context: {retrieved_chunks} Question: {user_query} Answer (markdown):
Choose an LLM – GPT‑4o, Claude‑3, Mixtral‑8x22B, Phi‑3‑medium. Temperature ≈ 0.2‑0.7 for factual tasks.
Guardrails – hallucination checkers, citation tags ([doc‑123]) for transparency.
Combine tools – libraries like LangChain’s RetrievalQA or LlamaIndex’s QueryEngine wire retrieval and generation in ~10 lines of code.
Performance hint: Parallelize embedding calls with async; cache answers for repeated queries.
Step 5: Evaluate, monitor, iterate
A RAG system is only as good as its evaluation. You need to measure performance at multiple layers and continuously improve.
Layer | How to measure | Automation ideas |
|---|---|---|
Retrieval | Precision@k, Recall@k, ASR (answer‑source recall) | Ground‑truth pairs + pytest |
Generation | BLEU/ROUGE for drafts, but prefer human rubric (correctness, helpfulness, citation usage) | Model‑based graders (OpenAI score_model, Anthropic comparison) |
End‑user | CSAT, unanswered‑rate, latency p95 | Grafana dashboards & alerts |
Regularly re‑embed when corpus drifts; fine‑tune chunk sizes or add metadata filters (product, version, locale) to cut junk results.
Common pitfalls & quick fixes
Pitfall | Symptom | Fix |
|---|---|---|
Over‑long chunks | Model ignores the tail or truncates the prompt | Split smaller or switch to model with >16 k context |
Irrelevant retrieval | Answers cite the wrong document | Add metadata filters; increase chunk overlap |
Hallucinations | Confident but wrong statements | Lower temperature, raise k, system prompt “If unsure, say ‘I don’t know’.” |
How Ducky helps you implement RAG in minutes
Even if you know exactly how to build a RAG system, the reality is that standing it up in production is time-consuming and brittle. Ducky simplifies every stage of the workflow, so you can spend less time wrestling with infrastructure and more time delivering value to your users.
Here's how Ducky makes RAG implementation simple:
Ingestion & chunking
Ducky automatically ingests your documents, chunks them into semantically complete pieces, and handles embeddings behind the scenes. No more guessing the right chunk size or fiddling with overlapping windows.
Managed vector storage and retrieval
Skip the operational burden of running your own vector DB. Ducky provides fully managed vector storage, indexing, and retrieval with built-in observability, high availability, and role-based access controls.
Hybrid retrieval and re-ranking
Ducky combines dense vector search with keyword filtering and optional re-rankers to improve retrieval precision, no manual integration needed.
Simple APIs and SDKs
Integrate advanced retrieval into your app in hours, not weeks. Ducky offers clean Python and TypeScript SDKs, with clear examples and starter templates.
No ML expertise required
You don't need to worry about embeddings, re-embedding churn, or scaling infrastructure. Ducky abstracts the complexity and lets you focus on building great user experiences.
Talk to our experts to see how Ducky makes RAG implementation simple: ship production-ready retrieval pipelines in hours instead of months, without worrying about vector DB ops, embedding churn, or re-ranking tuning.
Read this blog to learn how to implement Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in 5 simple steps.
Every developer knows the frustration: your LLM confidently states wrong information, your prompts are growing unwieldy, and your retrieval pipelines break every time you add new data. Hallucinations undermine user trust, prompt engineering becomes unmanageable as knowledge scales, and retrieval pipelines are fragile and hard to maintain.
You've probably considered RAG as a solution, but the implementation seems intimidating. Vector databases, embedding models, chunking strategies, re-ranking algorithms: where do you even start?
Here's the good news: RAG doesn't have to be intimidating or complex. This guide shows you how to implement RAG in 5 straightforward steps, complete with clear explanations and example code to get you started fast.
Step 1: Clarify the problem & knowledge scope
Once you know it's time to implement RAG, the first step is to get clarity on what you're building. This step is critical because it shapes every downstream decision about architecture, data processing, and evaluation.
Define these three core elements:
1. What questions your RAG system must answer
Your RAG system isn't a general-purpose search engine, it's a specialized tool for your specific use case. Are you building a customer support bot that needs to answer product questions? A legal assistant that searches through case law? An internal documentation system for your engineering team?
2. What data sources will you ingest
Catalog your knowledge sources: PDFs, web pages, databases, APIs, Slack messages, or support tickets. Each format requires different handling, and some sources update more frequently than others.
3. Constraints that matter
Consider privacy requirements (is PII involved?), latency expectations (real-time vs. batch processing), and update frequency (static documents vs. streaming data).
Pro tip: Write a "North-Star Query". A single, representative question your system must answer perfectly. Use this to keep evaluations focused and avoid scope creep.
Ask yourself these handy questions:
What can't your current LLM answer confidently?
Who owns your data, and how often does it change?
Is PII involved?
Step 2: Ingest & chunk your knowledge base
Raw documents aren't ready for retrieval; they need to be processed, cleaned, and split into semantically complete chunks that your LLM can understand.
Clean & split:
from langchain.text_splitter import RecursiveCharacterTextSplitter splitter = RecursiveCharacterTextSplitter(chunk_size=1024, chunk_overlap=100) docs = splitter.split_documents(raw_docs)
Loading data via format-specific loaders (LangChain, LlamaIndex, or Ducky)
Cleaning and splitting documents into semantically complete chunks
Embedding with models (OpenAI, Cohere, Hugging Face)
Pro tip: ~10% chunk overlap prevents boundary truncation.
Step 3: Index & retrieve relevant chunks
The next step is to index and retrieve relevant chunks.
Approach | Quick start | Hidden costs & trade‑offs |
|---|---|---|
In‑memory prototype (FAISS) | pip install faiss-cpu | Great for hack‑day demos, but everything evaporates when the process restarts. No persistence, hot‑standby, or horizontal scaling; growth is bound by RAM on a single box. |
Roll‑your‑own (Postgres + pgvector) | CREATE EXTENSION pgvector; | Full control comes at the price of ops: capacity planning, schema migrations, index rebuilds, replication lag, backup windows, security patching, and 2 a.m. alerts when recall tanks. |
Reality check before DIY
Sizing – Vector math is memory‑hungry; underestimate and you’ll swap or time out.
Index tuning – Picking ivfflat or hnsw is easy; retuning probes, lists, and ef_search as your corpus grows is not.
Re‑embedding churn – New documents = new embeddings = bulk inserts = index bloat. Plan for reindex jobs and downtime windows.
Observability – Custom Grafana boards for recall, QPS, P95 latency, and heap usage are a must.
High availability – Streaming replication helps, but failover scripts and consistency checks are on you.
Compliance & security – Encryption at rest, role‑based access, audit logging… all manual switches you must remember to flip.
DIY can work, but only if “running a vector database” is a capability you’re keen to own.
Retrieve top‑k (k ≈ 3‑10) by cosine or dot‑product similarity:
similar = vector_store.similarity_search(query, k=4)
Add an optional re‑ranker (e.g., Cohere Rerank, Cross‑Encoder) to sharpen precision for verbose queries.
Step 4: Generate answers with context fusion
Step 4 is to combine the retrieved context with your LLM to generate accurate, grounded responses.
Prompt template – simple but explicit:
You are a helpful assistant for ACME docs. Use ONLY the context below. Context: {retrieved_chunks} Question: {user_query} Answer (markdown):
Choose an LLM – GPT‑4o, Claude‑3, Mixtral‑8x22B, Phi‑3‑medium. Temperature ≈ 0.2‑0.7 for factual tasks.
Guardrails – hallucination checkers, citation tags ([doc‑123]) for transparency.
Combine tools – libraries like LangChain’s RetrievalQA or LlamaIndex’s QueryEngine wire retrieval and generation in ~10 lines of code.
Performance hint: Parallelize embedding calls with async; cache answers for repeated queries.
Step 5: Evaluate, monitor, iterate
A RAG system is only as good as its evaluation. You need to measure performance at multiple layers and continuously improve.
Layer | How to measure | Automation ideas |
|---|---|---|
Retrieval | Precision@k, Recall@k, ASR (answer‑source recall) | Ground‑truth pairs + pytest |
Generation | BLEU/ROUGE for drafts, but prefer human rubric (correctness, helpfulness, citation usage) | Model‑based graders (OpenAI score_model, Anthropic comparison) |
End‑user | CSAT, unanswered‑rate, latency p95 | Grafana dashboards & alerts |
Regularly re‑embed when corpus drifts; fine‑tune chunk sizes or add metadata filters (product, version, locale) to cut junk results.
Common pitfalls & quick fixes
Pitfall | Symptom | Fix |
|---|---|---|
Over‑long chunks | Model ignores the tail or truncates the prompt | Split smaller or switch to model with >16 k context |
Irrelevant retrieval | Answers cite the wrong document | Add metadata filters; increase chunk overlap |
Hallucinations | Confident but wrong statements | Lower temperature, raise k, system prompt “If unsure, say ‘I don’t know’.” |
How Ducky helps you implement RAG in minutes
Even if you know exactly how to build a RAG system, the reality is that standing it up in production is time-consuming and brittle. Ducky simplifies every stage of the workflow, so you can spend less time wrestling with infrastructure and more time delivering value to your users.
Here's how Ducky makes RAG implementation simple:
Ingestion & chunking
Ducky automatically ingests your documents, chunks them into semantically complete pieces, and handles embeddings behind the scenes. No more guessing the right chunk size or fiddling with overlapping windows.
Managed vector storage and retrieval
Skip the operational burden of running your own vector DB. Ducky provides fully managed vector storage, indexing, and retrieval with built-in observability, high availability, and role-based access controls.
Hybrid retrieval and re-ranking
Ducky combines dense vector search with keyword filtering and optional re-rankers to improve retrieval precision, no manual integration needed.
Simple APIs and SDKs
Integrate advanced retrieval into your app in hours, not weeks. Ducky offers clean Python and TypeScript SDKs, with clear examples and starter templates.
No ML expertise required
You don't need to worry about embeddings, re-embedding churn, or scaling infrastructure. Ducky abstracts the complexity and lets you focus on building great user experiences.
Talk to our experts to see how Ducky makes RAG implementation simple: ship production-ready retrieval pipelines in hours instead of months, without worrying about vector DB ops, embedding churn, or re-ranking tuning.
No credit card required - we have a generous free tier to support builders