Fix Milvus HNSW-PQ m parameter conflicts with M.#821
Open
bashimao wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: bashimao The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
bashimao
force-pushed
the
hnswpq_pram_passing
branch
from
July 17, 2026 15:31
b13dd7b to
37cea42
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The
mparameter in Milvus HNSW-PQ is not adjustable when using the command-line. Even worse, settingMandmleads to a situation where the order in which you define the parameters in your YAML-file determines what value ends up inM.Proposed solution
Add a separate command-line switch
--pq-mto specify themfor product quantization.However, while this fixes the frontend, which is sufficient for my current needs, I strongly suggest you consider the renaming the parameter in the backend as well. This idea to have parameters that only differ in upper/lower-case (i.e.,
Mvs.m) is an accident bound to happen.To replicate the problem
Output:
Note how
M=64now. Becausemis the later value.m=32because it is literally not hooked up in the backend.To replicate the fix
Output:
Output:
Note how
M=8regardless of whether it is spelled upper- or lowercase in the YAML, andm=64because in the YAMLpq_m: 64.