QuackIR: Retrieval in DuckDB and Other Relational Database Management Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enterprises today are increasingly encouraged to adopt dedicated vector databases for retrieval augmented generation (RAG) in large language model applications. We propose that, instead, organizations should leverage existing relational databases for retrieval, which many have already deployed, minimizing additional complexity in their software stacks. To demonstrate the feasibility of this approach, we present QuackIR, an information retrieval (IR) toolkit built on relational database management systems (RDBMSs), with integrations in DuckDB, SQLite, and PostgreSQL. Using QuackIR, we benchmark the sparse and dense retrieval capabilities of these popular RDBMSs and demonstrate that their effectiveness is comparable to baselines from established IR toolkits. Our results highlight the potential of relational databases as a simpler alternative compared to vector stores for RAG scenarios due to their established widespread usage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".