Suppose I want to delete a vector from Pinecone or a multi-vector from a single document. Pinecone does not provide feedback on whether a document is deleted or not. In SQL and NoSQL databases, if we delete something, we get a response that it is deleted. The tool does not confirm whether a file is deleted or not. I have raised the issue with support. If we have 10,000 vectors in our index and do not use a metadata tag, it will take one to three seconds to complete a search. When I try to search using a metadata tag, the speed is still the same. The search speed must be much faster because I specify which vectors I need the data from.
Machine Learning Engineer at a consumer goods company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 5
2024-05-13T07:22:51Z
May 13, 2024
There aren't any problems with the product, and I feel it is a good solution. Users also need to consider the different sources and options in the market and, at their own discretion, should decide whether to go with Pinecone or some other solution. In Pinecone, there are a lot of changes to be made to meet your requirements. Even though Pinecone is a good tool, I haven't used it much. For testing purposes, the product should offer support locally as it is one area where the tool has shortcomings. A person needs to learn everything and figure out how the product works. If, as users, we get to know how to use the product properly, then we can use it for our specific use cases, making the product more user-friendly for all. The product can be made more user-friendly.
Onboarding could be better and smoother. Navigation is difficult because most of us rely on watching tutorials on YouTube to understand how to use this software. The onboarding journey should explain more topics.
Full-stack Engineer at a security firm with 201-500 employees
Real User
Top 20
2024-02-01T08:41:51Z
Feb 1, 2024
The product fails to offer a serverless type of storage capacity. From an improvement perspective, the storage capacity of the tool should not be pod-based.
Pinecone is a powerful tool for efficiently storing and retrieving vector embeddings. It is highly praised for its scalability, speed, and ease of integration with existing workflows.
Users find it particularly useful for similarity search, recommendation systems, and natural language processing.
Its efficient search capabilities, seamless integration with existing systems, and ability to handle large-scale datasets make it a valuable tool for data analysis and retrieval.
I want to suggest that Pinecone requires a login and API key, but I would prefer not to have a login system and to use the environment directly.
Pinecone can be made more budget-friendly.
Suppose I want to delete a vector from Pinecone or a multi-vector from a single document. Pinecone does not provide feedback on whether a document is deleted or not. In SQL and NoSQL databases, if we delete something, we get a response that it is deleted. The tool does not confirm whether a file is deleted or not. I have raised the issue with support. If we have 10,000 vectors in our index and do not use a metadata tag, it will take one to three seconds to complete a search. When I try to search using a metadata tag, the speed is still the same. The search speed must be much faster because I specify which vectors I need the data from.
There aren't any problems with the product, and I feel it is a good solution. Users also need to consider the different sources and options in the market and, at their own discretion, should decide whether to go with Pinecone or some other solution. In Pinecone, there are a lot of changes to be made to meet your requirements. Even though Pinecone is a good tool, I haven't used it much. For testing purposes, the product should offer support locally as it is one area where the tool has shortcomings. A person needs to learn everything and figure out how the product works. If, as users, we get to know how to use the product properly, then we can use it for our specific use cases, making the product more user-friendly for all. The product can be made more user-friendly.
Onboarding could be better and smoother. Navigation is difficult because most of us rely on watching tutorials on YouTube to understand how to use this software. The onboarding journey should explain more topics.
The product fails to offer a serverless type of storage capacity. From an improvement perspective, the storage capacity of the tool should not be pod-based.