How does an IVF-PQ index differ from a plain IVF index in terms of storage footprint and accuracy trade-offs?

The IVF-PQ (Inverted File with Product Quantization) index and plain IVF (Inverted File) index differ significantly in storage requirements and accuracy trade-offs due to their underlying architectures. IVF-PQ combines vector clustering with compressed representations, while plain IVF relies on raw or lightly compressed data. Here’s a detailed breakdown:

1. Storage Footprint

The IVF-PQ index reduces storage demands by compressing high-dimensional vectors into compact codes. Product Quantization (PQ) splits vectors into subvectors, each represented by a small codebook entry. For example, a 128-dimensional float vector (512 bytes) might be compressed to 8 bytes using PQ. In contrast, a plain IVF index stores raw vectors or uses minimal compression (e.g., scalar quantization), requiring significantly more space. A cluster of 1 million vectors in IVF-PQ might occupy ~8MB, while plain IVF could require ~512MB. This makes IVF-PQ ideal for large-scale datasets where memory or disk constraints are critical.

2. Accuracy Trade-offs

PQ introduces approximation errors because it replaces original vectors with quantized codes. During search, distances are computed using these codes, which may miss subtle variations in the data. For example, a nearest-neighbor search in IVF-PQ might return results with 90% accuracy compared to ground truth, while plain IVF (using raw vectors) could achieve 98% accuracy. However, IVF-PQ allows tuning parameters like the number of subquantizers or codebook size to balance accuracy and compression. Increasing subquantizers improves fidelity but raises storage costs slightly.

3. Use Case Suitability

• IVF-PQ is preferred for scenarios prioritizing storage efficiency and fast retrieval over absolute precision, such as recommendation systems or image retrieval with billions of items.
• Plain IVF suits applications requiring high accuracy, like medical imaging or scientific datasets, where even minor errors are unacceptable.

In summary, IVF-PQ sacrifices some accuracy for dramatic storage savings, while plain IVF retains higher fidelity at the cost of increased memory usage. The choice depends on whether the application’s priority is scalability (IVF-PQ) or precision (IVF).

[No relevant references were directly cited from the provided materials.]