Will Amazon S3 Vectors kill vector databases or save them?

This is a good article and seems well balanced despite being written by someone with a product that directly competes with Amazon S3. I particularly appreciated their attempt to reverse-engineer how S3 Vectors work, including this detail:

> Filtering looks to be applied after coarse retrieval. That keeps the index unified and simple, but it struggles with complex conditions. In our tests, when we deleted 50% of data, TopK queries requesting 20 results returned only 15—classic signs of a post-filter pipeline.

Things like this are why I'd much prefer if Amazon provided detailed documentation of how their stuff works, rather than leaving it to the development community to poke around and derive those details independently.

> Things like this are why I'd much prefer if Amazon provided detailed documentation of how their stuff works, rather than leaving it to the development community to poke around and derive those details independently.

Absolutely this. So much engineering time has been wasted on reverse-engineering internal details of things in AWS that could be easily documented. I once spent a couple days empirically determining how exactly cross-AZ least-outstanding-requests load balancing worked with AWS's ALB because the docs didn't tell me. Reverse-engineering can be fun (or at least I kinda enjoy it) but it's not a good use of our time and is one of those shadow costs of using the Cloud.

It's not like there's some secret sauce here in most of these implementation details (there aren't that many ways to design a load balancer). If there was, I'd understand not telling us. This is probably less an Apple-style culture of secrecy and more laziness and a belief that important details have been abstracted away from us users because "The Cloud" when in fact, these details do really matter for performance and other design decisions we have to make.

>It's not like there's some secret sauce here in most of these implementation details. If there was, I'd understand not telling us. This is probably less an Apple-style culture of secrecy and more laziness and a belief that important details have been abstracted away from us users because "The Cloud" when in fact, these details do really matter for performance and other design decisions we have to make.

Having worked inside AWS I can tell you one big reason is the attitude/fear that anything we put in out public docs may end up getting relied on by customers. If customers rely on the implementation to work in a specific way, then changing that detail requires a LOT more work to prevent breaking customer's workloads. If it is even possible at that point.

And yet "Hyrum's Law" famously says people will come to rely on features of your system anyway, even if they are undocumented. So I'm not convinced this is really customer-centric, it's more AWS being able to say: hey sorry this change broke things for you, but you were relying on an internal detail. I do think there is a better option here where there are important details that are published but with a "this is subject to change at any time" warning slapped on them. Otherwise, like OP says, customers just have to figure it all out on their own.

Sure, but the court isn’t going to consider hyrum’s law in a tort claim, but might consider AWS documentation - even with a disclaimer - with more weight.

Rely on undocumented behavior at your own risk.