Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
retrieval stack for private docs
#1
Posting this in case it saves someone else a little time.

I'm helping a small team set up a local workflow. We don't need a giant stack, but we do care about INT4.

Simple and boring is a valid answer.

For context, I'm not chasing leaderboard numbers. I mostly want the system to feel consistent day to day.
measure twice, benchmark three times
Reply
#2
Thanks, that helps. I ended up in about the same place using MLX. Worth rechecking your defaults though, because one bad assumption can make the rest of the thread look confusing.
Reply
#3
I think the bottleneck is somewhere else. The reported numbers can look compelling, but in ordinary usage I didn't see the same benefit.
watching release notes so you don't have to
Reply
#4
A couple things I'd check first. Start by verifying the driver/runtime combo, then test with a smaller prompt, then look at KV cache pressure. Once you know the plain path works, then add the faster path back in piece by piece.
Reply
#5
Quote:A couple things I'd check first. Start by verifying the driver/runtime combo, then test with a smaller prompt, then look at KV cache pressure. Once yo

What worked for me was pretty simple. Before rebuilding anything, I'd test one clean baseline with DeepSeek and compare from there. A lot of these threads end up being one bad config plus a pile of conclusions drawn from it.
Reply
#6
Good point. I don't think your conclusion is far off. The biggest change for me was simplifying the stack instead of adding one more optimization layer.
routing beats arguing over one perfect model
Reply
#7
Thanks, that helps. That matches what I saw on mini PC. The biggest change for me was simplifying the stack instead of adding one more optimization layer.
Reply
#8
A couple things I'd check first. If you're on llama.cpp, I'd confirm the version first and then reduce variables until the behavior is obvious. A lot of these threads end up being one bad config plus a pile of conclusions drawn from it.
Reply
#9
Quote:A couple things I'd check first. If you're on llama.cpp, I'd confirm the version first and then reduce variables until the behavior is obvious. A lot

Interesting, I hadn't tried that. The pattern around reranking has been pretty similar for me. Worth rechecking your defaults though, because one bad assumption can make the rest of the thread look confusing.
Reply
#10
Appreciate the detail. I don't think your conclusion is far off.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)