🤫 Your RAG System Is Stupid (Here's The 11-Step Fix)

I. Introduction: Why Your RAG Agent Isn't as Smart as You Want

So, you've built your first RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) application. It's pretty cool, right? It works... sort of.

If you're like me, you've felt the frustration. Your AI retrieves documents and generates answers but the results are all over the place.

• Sometimes it hallucinates and just makes things up.

• Sometimes it misses obvious information that you know is sitting right there in your database.

• And sometimes, it returns an answer that's technically correct but completely useless.

Sound familiar?

Here's the thing I've learned after building dozens of these systems: basic RAG is just the beginning. It's the "hello world" of AI applications.

The difference between a flashy demo that impresses your friends and a production-ready RAG system that actually delivers business value comes down to your implementation strategy. The AI community is flooded with new "RAG techniques" every week and it's almost impossible to know which ones are worth your time and which are just ideas from researchers.

I recently got deep into a breakdown of 11 distinct RAG strategies, complete with code examples using Neon Postgres. This guide is the result.

II. Why Basic RAG Falls Short (And What We're Fixing)

Before we get into the solutions, let's be really clear about the core problems with a basic RAG system. Traditional "naive" RAG follows a simple pattern:

1. Chunk: Chop your documents into 1000-token pieces.

2. Embed: Turn those chunks into vectors (numbers).

3. Retrieve: Find the top 3 to 5 chunks that mathematically match the user's question.

4. Generate: Stuff those chunks into a prompt and ask an LLM to generate an answer.

This works great for a simple demo but it breaks down fast in the real world. Here’s why:

• Retrieval Quality Suffers: Your meaning-based search is fast but it's "dumb". It might find chunks that use the same words as the question but completely miss the subtle meaning. The best answer might be the 7th or 8th document but your system only grabbed the top 5, so it never even sees it.

• Context Gets Fragmented: Randomly "chunking" a document is like putting a book through a paper shredder. You destroy the relationships between paragraphs. Your AI might retrieve a chunk that says, "The project was a massive success" but it misses the next chunk that says, "...in the first quarter, before it failed in the second".

• Queries are Ambiguous: Users ask vague questions like, "Tell me about our Q3 performance". A simple RAG system doesn't know what to search for. Financial docs? Sales reports? Customer feedback surveys?

• Responses Lack Verification: The AI generates an answer and has no idea if it's right or wrong. It doesn't check its own work.

The 11 strategies we're about to explore are all designed to fix these specific failure points. Stay on target.

III. The RAG Strategies: From Easy Wins to Expert-Level

Strategy 1: Reranking (The Easiest Win You Can Get)

• What It Does: This is a simple, two-step search.

First, your fast vector search "retrieves" a broad set of candidates (say, the top 20 or 50 most relevant chunks).

Then, you use a second, more sophisticated (and slower) AI model, called a "reranker", to re-score just those 20-50 candidates and pick the actual best 5.

• Why It Matters: Your initial vector search is fast but dumb. It's good at finding a lot of potential matches. The reranker is slow but smart. It's much better at understanding the nuance and intent of the user's question. This retrieve-then-rerank process gives you the best of both worlds: a wide net and a smart final selection.

• Honest Assessment: This is probably the single best use of your time on this entire list. From my experience, it's often a "must-have" for any serious RAG system. It's easy to implement; it's just one extra API call (like to Cohere's Reranker) between your retrieval and generation steps.

• When to Skip It: Honestly? Almost never. But if you're working with an extremely small and simple set of documents (like 20-30 total), your initial retrieval might already be 99% accurate, so a reranker might be overkill.

Strategy 2: Agentic RAG (Letting Your AI "Think" Before It Searches)

• What It Does: Instead of just "stupidly" taking the user's query at face value, you use an "agent" (a more advanced LLM) to reason about the query first. The agent can plan multiple retrieval steps and even use different tools.

• Why It Matters: Users ask terrible, vague questions. "Tell me about our Q3 performance" is a classic example. An agent can look at that and plan its search:

  1. "First, I need to search the financial database for Q3 revenue and profit".

  2. "Second, I need to search the sales CRM for the top 10 deals closed".

  3. "Third, I need to search the customer feedback documents for general sentiment". A static RAG pipeline just hits one database and stops. An agent system can organize multiple, complex searches to build a complete answer.

• Honest Assessment: This is incredibly powerful but it also adds a new layer of complexity. You're no longer just debugging a simple pipeline; you're debugging the agent's reasoning. This makes sense when your users' questions genuinely require multi-step thinking or access to many different knowledge sources.

• When to Skip It: If your app is a simple Q&A bot for a single, unified knowledge base (like a help center), this is over-engineering.

Don't build an "agent" when a simple "pipe" will do.

Strategy 3: Knowledge Graphs (Structuring Your Chaos)

• What It Does: Instead of just storing raw text chunks, you first use an AI to read all your documents and extract key entities (like people, products or companies) and relationships (like "reports to", "is part of", "depends on"). You store these in a knowledge graph alongside your vector database.

• Why It Matters: Some questions are fundamentally about relationships, not just text.

  • "Any ideas for what I could do this Saturday?"

  • "Where should I move to?"

  • "Show me all the plans for a trip to Paris we talked about last month?"

A pure vector search will struggle with these questions about structure. A knowledge graph is built for them.

• Honest Assessment: Knowledge graphs are amazing for the right use case. But they require a lot of upfront work to build and maintain. This is overkill for many simple content Q&A apps.

• When to Use It: Use it when you are working with highly structured, interconnected domains where the relationships are the data. Think legal case law, scientific research, business intelligence (org charts, supply chains) or complex genealogies.

Strategy 4: Contextual Retrieval (Giving Chunks a "Memory")

• What It Does: This directly fixes the "shredded book" problem. When you chunk your documents, add a step before you embed them. You use an LLM to generate a brief, one-sentence summary of the surrounding context for each chunk.

• The Process:

  • Original Chunk: "The acquisition closed in Q4, exceeding initial projections". (Useless. Which acquisition?)

  • Enhanced Chunk: "Context: This passage discusses TechCorp's 2024 acquisition of DataSystems. The acquisition closed in Q4, exceeding initial projections". Then you embed this "context-enhanced" chunk.

• Why It Matters: This is a brilliant, simple fix for the fragmentation problem. Each chunk now carries its own essential "memory" of where it came from, making the retrieval process far more accurate.

• Honest Assessment: Research from Anthropic has shown that this significantly improves retrieval accuracy. The main downside is cost. You are making an extra LLM call for every single chunk during your initial indexing. This is a trade-off: you pay a higher one-time cost during setup to get much better retrieval quality.

For high-value knowledge bases (like for a paying client), this is almost always worth it.

Strategy 5: Query Expansion (Helping Users Ask Better Questions)

• What It Does: You take the user's single, simple query and use an LLM to expand it into several related, "better" queries. Then you search for all of those variations at the same time.

• Example:

  • User asks: "How do I reset my password?"

  • AI expands to:

    1. "password reset procedure".

    2. "account recovery steps".

    3. "forgotten password help".

    4. "login credential recovery".

Run all four searches, gather the results and let the reranker (Strategy 1) find the best one.

• Why It Matters: Users often use different terminology than your documents. They say "fix the bug" when your docs say "troubleshoot the error". This expansion "catches" all the different ways a user might phrase their question.

• Honest Assessment: This is extremely valuable for any customer-facing RAG system where you can't control the user's vocabulary. It pairs perfectly with reranking: you "cast a wide net" with the expanded queries, then "rerank" the results to find the true gems.

Strategy 6: Multi-Query RAG (Answering from Different Angles)

• What It Does: This looks like query expansion but its goal is different. Instead of finding synonyms, it decomposes a complex question into several smaller, distinct questions.

• Example:

  • User asks: "Should our company adopt a microservices architecture?"

  • AI decomposes to:

    1. "What are the benefits of microservices architecture?"

    2. "What are the operational challenges and costs of microservices?"

    3. "What are the best alternatives to microservices?"

    4. "What organizational changes does a microservices architecture require?"

The AI retrieves answers for all four sub-questions and combines them into one comprehensive, balanced response.

• Why It Matters: Complex questions rarely have a single, one-dimensional answer. This strategy forces your AI to think like a consultant, considering many sides of a problem before responding.

• Honest Assessment: This is an advanced technique for decision-support systems, research tools and strategic analysis apps. Be warned: you are multiplying your retrieval and generation costs by the number of sub-queries you run. Use this "heavy-lifting" approach only when that level of comprehensive analysis is truly needed.

Strategy 7: Context-Aware Chunking (Respecting the Document)

• What It Does: This is the common-sense solution to the "book shredder" problem. Instead of arbitrarily splitting documents every 1000 tokens (which can cut a sentence in half), you chunk intelligently based on the document's structure.

• The Smart Approach:

  • You detect section headings (like H1, H2) and try to keep those sections together.

  • You always respect paragraph boundaries.

  • You can even identify major topic shifts in the content.

• Why It Matters: This preserves the logical flow of information. When a chunk is retrieved, it's a complete, coherent idea (like a full paragraph or section), not a random fragment.

• Honest Assessment: This should be a basic requirement for any real-world RAG system. It's a non-negotiable baseline. The minimal extra effort during indexing pays huge dividends in retrieval quality. Modern libraries like LangChain and LlamaIndex have built-in "recursive character splitters" that do a good job of this.

Strategy 8: Late Chunking (A More Advanced Technique)

• What It Does: This flips the normal RAG process on its head.

  • Traditional: Document → Split into Chunks → Embed each Chunk.

  • Late Chunking: Document → Embed the Entire Document → Store the small chunks but associate them with the full document's embedding.

• Why It Matters (In Theory): The idea is that each small chunk's embedding now carries the meaning of the entire document, giving it richer context.

• Honest Assessment: This is an advanced technique with mixed real-world results. The theory is sound but in my experience, the implementation complexity is high and the improvement over good context-aware chunking (Strategy 7) is often marginal for most business applications. It's a bit "academic" at this stage.

Strategy 9: Hierarchical RAG (Searching at Multiple Scales)

• What It Does: You store your documents at multiple levels of detail simultaneously. For example, you'd store the full document, summaries of each chapter/section and then all the individual paragraph chunks.

• The Retrieval Strategy:

  • A broad query like "What is this book about?" would search the summaries.

  • A specific query like "What was the p-value in study 3?" would search the chunks.

  • The system can even traverse the hierarchy: find the best summary, then "drill down" to search only the chunks within that specific section.

• Honest Assessment: This is very powerful for large, complex document collections, like a legal archive, a research database or an entire company's documentation.

• Implementation Complexity: High. You are building and maintaining multiple indexes (one for summaries, one for chunks) and implementing the logic to choose the right level for each query.

Strategy 10: Self-Reflective RAG (Teaching Your AI to Check Its Work)

• What It Does: This is a "must-have" for high-stakes applications. After the AI generates its first answer, the system pauses and forces the AI to evaluate its own work.

• The Process:

  1. Initial RAG process → Generate "Answer V1".

  2. Self-Evaluation Step: The system asks the AI, "Does this answer actually address the user's question? Is it complete? Are the sources relevant?"

  3. Iteration: If the AI says "No, this is incomplete", it reformulates the query, retrieves new documents and generates "Answer V2".

  4. This loop can repeat until the AI is satisfied with its own answer.

• Why It Matters: This directly attacks the problem of hallucinations and incomplete answers. The system can catch itself when it's giving a vague response or when the initial retrieval clearly missed the point. Don't accept an unchecked answer.

• Honest Assessment: This is an advanced and powerful technique but it's also expensive. You are potentially doubling or tripling your LLM costs for every single query. This makes sense for important applications where accuracy is most important: medical information, legal research or financial analysis.

• When to Skip It: For a simple customer-service bot where speed matters more than 100% perfection, this is overkill.

Strategy 11: Fine-Tuned Embeddings (The "Expert" Retrieval Model)

• What It Does: This is the most technically demanding strategy. Instead of using an off-the-shelf embedding model (like OpenAI's or Cohere's), you fine-tune your own embedding model on your specific domain.

• Why It Matters: General-purpose embedding models are trained on the whole internet. They might not understand your company's internal jargon or the specific nuances of your industry.

• Example: A medical RAG system might need an embedding model that understands "MI" means "myocardial infarction" (heart attack) in a cardiology doc but "mitral insufficiency" in a valve doc. Fine-tuning teaches the model these critical, domain-specific details.

• Honest Assessment: This is the final boss of RAG. It requires significant machine learning expertise, a large, high-quality dataset of question-and-answer pairs to train on and a lot of computing power. The improvement is measurable but for 99% of users, it's not worth the effort compared to simpler strategies.

• When It's Worth It: For large organizations with truly unique domains (like specialized legal, medical or scientific databases) and dedicated ML engineering resources.

• When to Skip It: For almost everyone starting out. Exhaust all the simpler strategies first.

IV. The Strategy Stack: What Actually Matters for Production

Here’s the most important insight I've found: you do not need to implement all 11 strategies. You strategically combine 3-5 of them based on your specific needs.

Building a RAG system is like building a custom car: you pick the right engine, tires and suspension for the track you're on.

1. The Baseline Stack (Start Here)

For 80% of all RAG applications, this combination will solve the majority of your quality issues with minimal complexity.

1. Context-Aware Chunking (Strategy 7): This is non-negotiable. Don't use "dumb" chunking.

2. Reranking (Strategy 1): This is the easiest, highest-impact addition you can make.

3. Query Expansion (Strategy 5): This is crucial for handling the "messy" way real users ask questions.

2. The Advanced Stack (When the Baseline Isn't Enough)

If your application is high-value and still needs better accuracy, add these:

• Contextual Retrieval (Strategy 4): Add this if your chunks are still missing context. It costs more at setup but the retrieval quality is worth it.

• Agentic RAG (Strategy 2): Add this only if your users are asking complex, multi-step questions that require pulling from different data sources at once.

3. The Specialized Additions

Only add these "heavy" solutions if you have a very specific, measured problem:

• Use Knowledge Graphs if your domain is all about relationships (org charts, supply chains).

• Use Hierarchical RAG if you have a massive document collection (like a legal library) and need both summaries and details.

• Use Self-Reflective RAG if you are in a high-stakes field (like medicine or finance) where accuracy is more important than cost or speed.

• Use Fine-Tuned Embeddings if you are a large organization with a unique vocabulary and a dedicated ML team.

V. Practical Implementation: How to Actually Build This Stuff

This all sounds great in theory but how do you actually build it? The good news is that you don't need exotic or expensive infrastructure. A solid Postgres database with the pgvector extension (which you can get for free from providers like Neon Postgres) can handle most of these advanced strategies.

The implementation patterns for these strategies can be adapted to almost any framework, whether you're using LangChain, LlamaIndex or building your own custom solution.

1. The Development Approach: From Simple to SOPHISTICATED

Here is a practical, step-by-step development approach I recommend. This is how you build a production-ready system without getting lost in complexity.

• Step 1: Start with a Baseline RAG system. Before you get fancy, get the simple version working. Set up your document, chunk it, embed it and get your AI to answer a question. This is your "hello world".

• Step 2: Add Reranking. This is your first and easiest upgrade. Add a reranking model (like the one from Cohere) after your initial retrieval. This one change will give you an immediate, noticeable boost in quality.

• Step 3: Measure the Problems. Now, use your baseline system and find its failures. Don't just guess what's wrong. Is it missing documents? Are the answers incomplete? Is it confused by user questions? Measure your actual problems before you try to fix them.

• Step 4: Add Strategies to Fix Your Problems.

  • If your retrieval is missing obvious documents, try Query Expansion (Strategy 5).

  • If your retrieved chunks lack context, add Contextual Retrieval (Strategy 4).

  • If your users ask complex, multi-part questions, use Agentic RAG (Strategy 2).

• Step 5: A/B Test Everything. As you add each new strategy, test it. Does it actually improve the results for your specific use case? Or does it just add cost and latency? Measure the impact of every single change.

2. Cost Considerations: What's Your Budget?

These strategies are not "free". They all add either compute cost (which you pay for every time a user asks a question) or indexing cost (which you pay for upfront). You must balance the need for quality against your running costs.

• Low Cost (My recommendation for most projects):

  • Reranking: Adds a very small API cost per query but the quality gain is huge.

  • Context-Aware Chunking: Adds a tiny bit of processing time once during setup but is free to run.

• Medium Cost (Use these to solve specific problems):

  • Query Expansion: Adds one extra, small LLM call per query.

  • Contextual Retrieval: Adds one LLM call per chunk during your initial setup, so it can be an expensive one-time cost.

• High Cost (Use only for high-stakes applications):

  • Self-Reflective RAG: This at least doubles your LLM cost for every query because the AI has to generate an answer and then analyze its own answer.

  • Agentic RAG: This can be very expensive, as the agent might make 3, 4 or 5 different LLM calls and retrievals just to answer one question.

• Upfront Cost (The "Big Projects"):

  • Fine-Tuned Embeddings: This requires a lot of data and expensive, specialized ML engineering time to train your own model.

  • Knowledge Graphs: This requires a massive upfront effort to extract all the entities and relationships from your documents.

VI. Common Mistakes to Avoid (The "RAG Traps")

I've seen these same mistakes sink RAG projects over and over. You have to know your limitations and you need to know the limitations of these strategies.

1. Over-Engineering on Day One

This is the most common trap. A developer reads 11 academic papers and tries to build a system with knowledge graphs, fine-tuned embeddings and self-reflection all at once.

• The Problem: The system becomes a slow, expensive, un-debuggable nightmare.

• The Solution: Don't do this. Start with a simple baseline and add reranking. You will be shocked at how many of your "quality issues" are solved by just those two things.

2. Ignoring Evaluation (Flying Blind)

You wouldn't drive a car with no dashboard, so why build an AI without evaluation?

• The Problem: You have no idea if your changes are making things better or worse. You're just guessing the results.

• The Solution: You must have metrics. Create a "gold standard" test set of 20-30 hard questions. Before you make a change, run your RAG system against this test set and log the answers. After you make a change, run the exact same test and compare the new answers to the old ones. Now you have proof, not just a feeling.

3. Copying Academic Papers Directly

Research papers are great but they are written to prove novelty, not production readiness.

• The Problem: Many "cutting-edge" techniques from papers are highly complex, slow and only provide a tiny 1-2% improvement on a specific benchmark.

• The Solution: Treat academic papers as inspiration, not as an instruction manual. Always ask, "Is the complexity of this new technique worth the actual (not theoretical) improvement for my specific business problem?" Most of the time, the answer is no.

4. Treating All Strategies as Equal

This is a critical error in judgment.

• Reranking (Strategy 1) takes an afternoon to implement and will likely give you a 20% quality boost.

• Fine-Tuned Embeddings (Strategy 11) can take weeks of expert ML engineering and might only give you a 5% boost if you have a highly specialized domain.

• The Solution: Prioritize your effort. Start with the low-effort, high-impact strategies first. Don't spend a month building a fine-tuned model if you haven't even tried reranking yet.

5. Forgetting About Latency (Speed)

Your RAG system might be the smartest in the world but if it takes 30 seconds to answer a question, no one will use it.

• The Problem: Many of these advanced strategies add significant "latency" (wait time). Self-Reflective RAG and Agentic RAG are the worst offenders because they involve multiple LLM calls for a single user question.

• The Solution: Make sure your use case can tolerate the latency. For a customer-facing chatbot, speed is everything. For an internal research tool that runs overnight, latency doesn't matter at all. Match the strategy to the user's expectation of speed.

VII. A Final Word: Don't Over-Engineer

When you see a list of 11 strategies, it's tempting to try and build a "perfect" system with all of them. Perfection is the enemy of good.

The gap between a demo-quality RAG and a production-ready RAG system isn't about using the most advanced techniques. It's about strategically combining the right techniques for your specific problem.

Start with the simple baseline. Get it working. Measure its failures. Then, add the one specific strategy that solves the failure you're seeing. Your RAG system does not need to be a masterpiece of engineering. It just needs to be good enough to deliver value, be reliable and be easy for your team to maintain.

That's the real strategy.

If you are interested in other topics and how AI is transforming different aspects of our lives or even in making money using AI with more detailed, step-by-step guidance, you can find our other articles here:

• Stop Feeding Your AI Expired GARBAGE*

• From Zero To A RAG System In 20 Minutes (No Code!)

• Your RAG System Sucks! (Here's The Easy Fix)

• Top 8 Vector Databases for AI & ML Projects in 2024: A Quick Guide

• The "AI Dream" Is Finally Here (Build A RAG Agent In 5 Mins)*

  *indicates a premium content, if any