Getting your Trinity Audio player ready…

Diagram: A RAG system retrieving from structured and unstructured internal sources. The LLM (“Generation Model”) receives a prompt augmented with context fetched by specialized retrievers – a structured data retriever (via SQL queries to databases) and an unstructured data retriever (via document search). In a complete RAG implementation, the retrieval component pulls both structured data from enterprise systems and unstructured documents from knowledge bases​

k2view.com

. The retrieval model selects the most relevant data from these sources based on the user’s query, transforms it into a contextual prompt, and invokes the LLM to generate a response​

k2view.com.

1. Relational Databases (SQL-Based)

Relational databases (like MySQL, PostgreSQL, or Microsoft SQL Server) store data in structured tables. RAG can interface with these systems by formulating SQL queries to retrieve relevant facts, then feeding those facts into a language model for generation. The process typically works as follows:

1. Query Conversion and Data Retrieval: The user’s natural language question is translated into an SQL query targeting the appropriate tables/columns. An LLM or tool can be used to generate this SQL based on the database schema​llamaindex.ai. For example, a question “What were our sales last quarter?” might be converted into a SQL query against a Sales table. The query is executed on the relational database, retrieving the structured data (rows) needed to answer the question. (In practice, one can simply have the LLM produce the SQL query directly given the schema​reddit.com.)
2. Processing Structured Results: The returned rows (tabular data) are then converted into a format the LLM can understand. This may involve transforming the table into text – for instance, joining rows into a sentence or a formatted list​llamaindex.ai. By turning the SQL result into a textual summary or snippet, the RAG system prepares the information as context for the model. In some cases, the table itself (or a portion of it) might be provided in a readable form (like CSV or markdown) for the LLM to parse.
3. Augmented Generation: The LLM receives the user’s question along with the retrieved data (now in a textual or structured form) as context. It then generates an answer or analysis that grounds itself in the retrieved data. Because the answer is augmented with actual database content, it stays factual – for example, citing the exact sales figures from the SQL result rather than guessing. This mitigates hallucination and ensures the response reflects the database’s information​llamaindex.ai​llamaindex.ai.

Embeddings and Semantic Search in SQL: In relational settings that involve text (e.g. a customer feedback column or product descriptions), RAG can incorporate embeddings for semantic retrieval. For instance, text fields can be vectorized and stored (using extensions like PostgreSQL’s pgVector) so that semantic similarity search can be done via SQL queries​

reddit.com

. Instead of a keyword LIKE query, the system generates an embedding for the user question and finds the closest matching text entries by cosine similarity. This allows RAG to retrieve relevant rows based on meaning, not just exact terms. Traditional SQL capabilities (like full-text indexes or keyword search) can be used alongside, or to support the embedding approach – e.g. first filter by a keyword, then use an embedding to rank results. By combining structured queries and vector search, an LLM-based system can handle both precise data lookup and fuzzy text matches within a SQL database.

Use Cases: RAG with relational databases unlocks natural-language analysis of structured data. For example, in business intelligence, an analyst could ask “Show me the top 5 products by revenue this year” and the system will run the appropriate SQL and then have the LLM explain or list the results. This makes data exploration more accessible. Another use case is data-driven chatbots: a customer support bot might use RAG to query a customer’s order status from an SQL database and incorporate that into its answer (“Your order shipped on Jan 5th…”). In summary, RAG enhances analysis by allowing conversational querying of relational data and providing contextual explanations – the LLM handles the narrative and reasoning, while SQL provides the hard facts.

2. NoSQL Databases (Document and Key-Value Stores)

NoSQL databases (like MongoDB, Cassandra, CouchDB) store unstructured or semi-structured data, often as JSON documents or key-value pairs. Using RAG with NoSQL, an application can retrieve relevant documents or records from this store to ground the LLM’s responses. The workflow is slightly different from SQL, given the schema-free nature:

• Flexible Document Retrieval: A RAG system can leverage the NoSQL database’s query capabilities to fetch documents that might contain the answer. For example, if a user asks about a specific user’s settings, the system might query a MongoDB for the document with "user":"Alice". If the query is more textual (e.g. “find reports about network outage”), some NoSQL databases support text indexes or filters to return documents containing certain keywords. The idea is to narrow down to a subset of documents or records that are likely relevant to the query. In Cassandra (a wide-column store), this might involve using an indexed column or a lookup by key to get the relevant entries, which can then be scanned for the desired info.
• Embedding-Based Search: Modern NoSQL platforms increasingly integrate vector search for unstructured data. For instance, MongoDB Atlas and Azure Cosmos DB support storing vector embeddings and performing similarity search over documents​mongodb.com​learn.microsoft.com. In an RAG pipeline, this means the system can embed the user’s question into a vector and use the database to semantically retrieve the most similar documents. Rather than relying only on tags or keywords, the NoSQL database’s vector index finds content that conceptually matches the query (even if phrasing differs). This is powerful for cases like searching a knowledge base of support tickets or user reviews: the top-N most relevant documents (by cosine similarity) are pulled directly from the NoSQL store as context​learn.microsoft.com.
• Context Assembly for the LLM: Once the relevant unstructured records are retrieved (whether via direct query or vector similarity), the RAG system prepares them for the LLM. This could mean extracting just the needed fields or text from a JSON, or converting the document into a more prompt-friendly format. For example, a MongoDB document might be rendered as a short paragraph: “Ticket 123: User faced a network outage on 2025-07-01, resolved by restarting router.” The LLM then gets these pieces of text as part of its prompt context. With the real data in hand, the LLM can answer the user’s question with specificity – “Yes, we had two similar outage reports last week, both resolved by router resets.”, citing details from the retrieved documents rather than general training data​mongodb.com.

How Embeddings and Queries Help: In NoSQL RAG, embeddings enable semantic search over unstructured content, greatly enhancing retrieval accuracy. If a CouchDB stores IoT sensor logs, a user query like “high temperature spikes in January” can be handled by vectorizing log entries (or their descriptions) and finding similar patterns, something traditional queries struggle with. Meanwhile, NoSQL’s flexible querying allows combining structured filters with semantic search (e.g., restrict MongoDB documents by a date range, then use vector similarity on a description field). Azure Cosmos DB exemplifies this unified approach by allowing operational data and vectorized data to coexist and be queried together​

learn.microsoft.com

​

learn.microsoft.com. The result is a retrieval process that can consider both the fields/attributes of documents and their semantic content. This ensures that the LLM is fed with the most pertinent snippets from a vast pool of JSON docs or key-value items.

Use Cases: RAG with NoSQL is valuable for knowledge bases and log analysis. For instance, a company might store all support tickets or forum posts in a document database; an LLM using RAG can answer customer queries by pulling the exact relevant ticket text and summarizing it. This yields accurate, context-rich responses (the LLM might say “According to a previous ticket, error XYZ was fixed by patching the database config” – referencing the retrieved doc). Another use case is leveraging real-time data: NoSQL systems like Cassandra excel at ingesting streaming data, so an LLM could be asked “What’s the latest status of sensor X?” and the RAG system would fetch the most recent reading from Cassandra for the LLM to include in its answer. This way, even time-sensitive questions are answered with up-to-date data​

learn.microsoft.com

​

learn.microsoft.com. Overall, RAG turns NoSQL stores into dynamic information sources for LLMs – the unstructured data is no longer dark to the model, but rather becomes the fuel for informed, timely, and context-aware generation.

3. Vector Databases (Embedding Similarity Search)

Vector databases – such as Pinecone, Weaviate, FAISS, ChromaDB, and others – are specialized for storing and querying high-dimensional vectors (embeddings). They are a cornerstone of many RAG implementations because they enable efficient similarity search over textual or multimedia content. In a RAG context, a vector DB acts as the “memory” of external knowledge that the LLM can draw upon. The typical pipeline is:

1. Ingesting Data as Embeddings: First, the content to be made available for retrieval (documents, articles, FAQs, etc.) is broken into chunks and converted into vector embeddings using a model. Each chunk might be a paragraph or sentence, embedded into (say) a 768-dimensional vector space. These embeddings are then stored in the vector database, often along with metadata like an ID or source reference​github.com​github.com. For example, a product manual might be chunked into sections, each stored as an embedding in Pinecone with a tag pointing to the chapter. This preprocessing allows the RAG system to handle very large knowledge bases by indexing them in a way the LLM can later search by meaning.
2. Similarity Search at Query Time: When the user asks a question, that query is also converted into an embedding (using the same embedding model). The vector database is then queried for the k nearest neighbor vectors to this query embedding – in other words, it finds the most semantically relevant pieces of content. Vector databases are optimized for this operation, using algorithms (like HNSW or IVF) to rapidly find similar vectors among millions​mongodb.com. For example, if the question is “How to reset the router password?”, the system’s query embedding might closely match a chunk from an IT support document about router password resets; the vector DB would return that chunk as a top hit. This step is the core retrieval in RAG: the vector store filters the knowledge base down to a handful of relevant snippets based on similarity, not just keywords​github.com.
3. Fetching and Augmenting: The RAG system then retrieves the actual content associated with those top vectors – e.g. the text of the document snippets. These pieces of text (often a few paragraphs total) are assembled as context for the LLM. The prompt given to the LLM might include the original question plus a section like: “Relevant information:\n- [Snippet 1]\n- [Snippet 2]\n…”. The LLM uses this to generate its answer, effectively augmenting its generation with facts from the retrieved chunks​mongodb.com. For instance, it may produce an answer that quotes the manual: “You can reset the router password by pressing the reset button for 10 seconds, according to the company’s documentation.” The role of the vector database is crucial here – it ensured the LLM was provided the correct piece of documentation out of potentially thousands of pages.

Vector databases make this process scalable and fast. Popular vector stores (managed services like Pinecone or open-source like Chroma, Weaviate, FAISS) are built to handle large volumes of embeddings and provide millisecond-level similarity queries​

github.com

. They also often support metadata filtering (e.g., search only within a certain document type or date range) to improve retrieval precision. By using embeddings, RAG can capture synonyms and context – a query about “CEO of Acme Inc” will still retrieve a passage referring to “Acme’s chief executive” because in vector space those will be near each other. This semantic power is what makes vector DBs so integral to RAG.

Embeddings & Efficient Retrieval: The use of embeddings means that the meaning of text is encoded numerically. Searching in a vector DB is essentially asking “Which stored pieces of text are most similar in meaning to the query?”. This drastically improves over keyword search for complex questions. The process of chunking documents into smaller pieces (and embedding each) is important for granularity and token limits​

github.com

– the LLM can only handle a certain amount of text as input, so RAG only sends the most relevant chunks rather than entire documents. As noted in one guide, we “break down large documents into smaller chunks, transform them to text embeddings and store them in a database… when a user asks a question, the embeddings most like the question will be returned”​

github.com​

github.com. This way, the LLM’s context window is filled with just the information it needs. Additionally, because the data retrieval is external to the model, it can be updated in real-time: if a new document is added to the vector DB, the next query will immediately consider it, keeping the LLM’s knowledge up-to-date without retraining​

pinecone.io.

Use Cases: Vector databases are used in virtually all domains of RAG-enhanced applications. Enterprise Q&A is a common use: an internal chatbot that answers policy questions might vector-index all policy documents. When asked, it pulls up the exact policy clause relevant to the question and the LLM can cite it. This ensures answers are grounded in official text. Customer support is another area – for example, e-commerce customer queries can be answered by retrieving snippets from product manuals or FAQ pages (via a Chroma or Pinecone index) and having the LLM tailor the answer to the question. Even beyond text, any data that can be embedded (images, code, etc.) can be put in a vector DB for RAG. For instance, code snippets can be embedded so that a question like “How do I sort a list in Python?” retrieves a relevant code example from a knowledge base and the LLM can incorporate it. Overall, vector databases serve as the semantic search engine for RAG, enabling LLMs to analyze and draw upon large collections of data with understanding rather than exact matches.

4. Graph Databases (Knowledge Graphs)

Graph databases (like Neo4j, TigerGraph, or Amazon Neptune) store information in nodes (entities) and edges (relationships). They excel at modeling interconnected data – think of a knowledge graph of people, organizations, and their relationships, or a network of concepts. RAG can leverage graph databases by retrieving not just isolated facts but a web of related information that provides rich context to the LLM. Here’s how RAG interacts with graph data:

• Graph Querying for Context: When a question is asked, the system can formulate a graph query (e.g. using Cypher for Neo4j) to find the relevant subgraph. For example, if the question is, “Who does Alice collaborate with on projects?”, the RAG system might execute a Cypher query that finds the node for “Alice”, then finds all project nodes connected to Alice, and the colleagues (other person nodes) connected to those same projects. This retrieved subgraph is essentially the answer data: Alice → Project X ← Bob (showing Alice and Bob collaborate on Project X). Using LangChain or similar frameworks, one can integrate such graph queries seamlessly – the LLM can be provided with the graph query results (or even generate the Cypher query itself given the prompt)​deeplearning.ai. In effect, the RAG pipeline uses the graph database to traverse relationships and pull out the network of facts relevant to the query.
• Retrieving Interconnected Data: The result from the graph DB is often a set of records or a subgraph that includes multiple linked entities. Unlike a text document or a SQL row, this is relational context in the true sense – it shows how things are connected. The RAG system will take these graph results and typically convert them into text or a structured description for the LLM. Continuing the example, the subgraph might be turned into sentences: “Alice works on Project X with Bob. Alice also works on Project Y with Carol.” By retrieving this network of information, the LLM’s answer can be contextually rich. It doesn’t just know isolated facts (Alice’s projects, Bob’s name), but the relationships (Alice collaborates with Bob). Knowledge graphs can even enable inference: for instance, if the graph shows “Alice works for Company Z” and “Company Z is a subsidiary of Company Y”, an LLM could infer and explain how Alice is indirectly associated with Company Y – something a vector search might miss. In fact, graph traversal can uncover implicit connections that aren’t in any single document, addressing queries that require multi-hop reasoning​datacamp.com​datacamp.com.
• Contextualizing and Answering: Once the graph data is assembled into a readable form, it is provided to the LLM as context. The LLM then generates the final answer or analysis, now grounded in the relationships from the graph. For instance, for a query, “Does Alice work with someone who knows Python?”, the system might retrieve Alice’s colleagues and their skills from the graph, then the LLM can answer: “Yes, Alice works with Bob on Project X, and Bob’s skill set includes Python.” The important aspect is that the graph database has already done the heavy lifting of finding that connection (Alice → Project X → Bob → skill: Python). The LLM just has to articulate it. This synergy lets the RAG system answer complex, relationship-based questions accurately. Notably, the LLM can also enumerate or explain paths in the graph (e.g., describing the chain of relationships step by step) if needed for the answer’s clarity.

Role of Embeddings or Hybrid Approaches: While graph databases primarily use structured queries and traversals, embeddings can play a complementary role. For example, nodes might have unstructured attributes (like a person’s bio or a research paper’s text). These can be vectorized and indexed alongside the graph. Neo4j’s newer features and community projects allow adding a vector index to nodes so that you can do a semantic similarity search on, say, all papers in a citation network​

deeplearning.ai

. In a RAG scenario, this means you could first use a vector search to find a relevant node (e.g., a paper about “machine learning in finance” in a graph of papers), then use the graph’s edges to pull related nodes (e.g., other papers by the same author, or the author’s institutional affiliations) to enrich the context. This hybrid retrieval combines the power of semantic search with the explicit relational knowledge in the graph. Nonetheless, even without embeddings, graph queries themselves can handle a lot of nuanced questions – especially ones that involve joining data across multiple entities (something that would require multiple documents or complex SQL joins otherwise). Graph RAG can thus be seen as an approach to provide logical structure to the context: the LLM isn’t just fed a blob of text, but a structured story of how entities interrelate.

Use Cases: Graph-based RAG is particularly useful in domains where relationships are key. One use case is in expertise finding or organizational Q&A: e.g., “Who in our company has worked on cloud security projects with Alice?” A Neo4j knowledge graph of employees, projects, and skills can be queried to find those connections, and the LLM can then generate a response listing the names and project details. Another use case is recommendation or explanation systems: if you ask “Why was this product recommended to me?”, a graph of users, products, and interactions could be queried to find that “You liked product A which is often bought with product B” – the LLM can then explain the recommendation in those terms. Graph RAG shines in contextual analytics too; for example, in fraud detection, an LLM could explain a suspect transaction by retrieving a graph of linked accounts and pointing out, say, common IP addresses or shared personal info between seemingly unrelated accounts (revealing a ring of fraud). Because knowledge graphs capture the meaning and context behind data (not just raw facts), they can provide an LLM with a rich substrate for reasoning​

deeplearning.ai

. In summary, using RAG with graph databases allows LLMs to deliver answers that reflect connected knowledge – offering deeper insights (e.g., uncovering how things are related or the chain of evidence for an answer) that would be difficult to assemble from text alone. This makes responses more contextually informative and explainable, as the model can explicitly draw on the web of relationships stored in the graph.​

deeplearning.ai​

deeplearning.ai

Practical Example: Imagine a DevOps knowledge graph where nodes represent incidents, services, and engineers, with edges like “resolved_by” or “affects_service”. If an engineer asks, “Has anyone solved an outage similar to X recently?”, a RAG system could use the graph to find if incident X is linked to a service, then find other incidents affecting that service, see who resolved them and what the resolution was. The LLM could answer with something like: “Incident 456 (similar outage on Service ABC) was resolved by Jane Doe by upgrading the database version.” Here the graph provided the interconnected data (incident → service → other incident → resolver → resolution action), and the LLM turned that into a helpful narrative. This demonstrates how graph databases, when integrated into RAG, enable contextually rich responses that draw not just on individual data points, but on the relationships that knit those data points together.

O

Search

Deep research

ChatGPT c