179 questions
No questions match those filters.
You need a graph-based RAG architecture for a support b...
This is one of the questions in the full AI/ML interview bank. Pro unlocks all 1789 questions; Premium includes the same bank plus the highest daily Practice limit.
See plansStart with construction: turning text into a graph means extracting (head, relation, tail) triples, and the method is a precision/recall/cost trade. Manual curation is precise but doesn’t scale; rule-based extraction is nearly free but its recall ceiling is whatever the pattern author anticipated; LLM extraction (what both GraphRAG and LightRAG use) gets recall on paraphrase and cross-clause relations a fixed pattern set would miss, but you pay for it twice — once in tokens per chunk, again in deduplication work, since the same entity gets named differently across chunks and occasional relations get invented rather than entailed by the text.
Where GraphRAG and LightRAG genuinely diverge is architecture, and they answer different questions. GraphRAG partitions the extracted graph into a hierarchy of communities (via Leiden modularity maximization) and pre-writes an LLM summary at every level, so a query is answered by a map-reduce pass over summaries — built for corpus-level sense-making (“what are the major themes here”), not grounded single-fact lookups. That hierarchy has no write locality: a meaningful edit can shift community structure, so every material corpus change re-pays a real chunk of the summarization cost. LightRAG skips the hierarchy — it profiles each entity as a deduplicated key-value pair and answers queries with two parallel searches, a low-level key matching specific named entities and a high-level key matching broader themes, with no recursive resummarization step. For “which plan tier includes SSO” against a corpus with daily small edits, LightRAG’s flatter, more locally updatable structure matches both the query shape and the update cadence; GraphRAG’s community hierarchy would burn budget summarizing themes nobody asked about and require expensive rebuilds after routine edits. The general principle: pick the graph architecture from the query shape (global sense-making versus local grounded fact) and the corpus’s update frequency, not from name recognition.