When designing search functionality for modern applications, we often face a key decision: should we use a full-text search engine like Elasticsearch, or opt for a vector database such as Pinecone, Weaviate, or Qdrant? Both approaches are used to search text—but the underlying mechanisms, use cases, and strengths differ significantly.
Full-Text Search: Keyword-Based Precision
Full-text search engines like Elasticsearch or OpenSearch are based on traditional information retrieval methods. They use techniques such as tokenization, stemming, stop-word removal, and inverted indexes. Queries are often matched based on exact words or phrases.
Advantages of full-text search:
- High precision for keyword-based queries (e.g., “database migration tool for Laravel”).
- Mature ecosystem, with built-in features like filters, aggregations, ranking algorithms (BM25), and autocomplete.
- Fast and scalable for structured and semi-structured data.
- Excellent tooling and documentation.
Limitations:
- Struggles with semantic understanding—synonyms, paraphrased queries, and contextual meaning may not match well.
- Requires manual tuning for synonyms, fuzzy matching, or language-specific rules.
Vector Search: Semantic Understanding
Vector search is based on embeddings—high-dimensional numeric representations of text generated using machine learning models (e.g., OpenAI, Cohere, or Sentence-BERT). Instead of matching keywords, vector search finds content that is semantically similar to the query.
Advantages of vector search:
- Context-aware search: understands meaning, even if exact words are different.
- Excellent for natural language queries, such as “how do I make my database faster?”—even if those exact words aren’t in the documents.
- Ideal for question-answering, chatbots, recommendation systems, and AI-powered search interfaces.
Limitations:
- Requires an embedding model and infrastructure to generate and store vectors.
- Slower performance than full-text search for large-scale datasets unless optimized.
- Less mature filtering and ranking capabilities compared to Elasticsearch.
- Harder to explain search results to users (“why was this matched?”).
Use Case Comparison
Use Case | Full-Text Search | Vector Search |
---|---|---|
Product catalogs (with filters) | ✅ Strong | ⚠️ Less ideal |
FAQ or knowledge base search | ⚠️ Moderate | ✅ Excellent |
Semantic document search | ❌ Weak | ✅ Strong |
Codebase or log search | ✅ Very strong | ❌ Not suitable |
Hybrid AI search with context | ⚠️ Requires effort | ✅ Designed for this |
Hybrid Approaches
Many modern systems use both full-text and vector search in tandem. For example:
- Use full-text search for filters, sorting, and metadata.
- Use vector search for semantic relevance.
- Combine scores to rank results more intelligently.
Elasticsearch now supports vector search natively, and hybrid ranking strategies are becoming more common.
Final Thoughts
If your application relies on exact keyword matching, filters, or structured search—full-text search is still the best fit. But if you’re building AI-enabled search, semantic discovery, or conversational interfaces, vector search offers a new level of intelligence.
In many real-world scenarios, the most effective solution is a hybrid approach that combines the speed and maturity of full-text search with the intelligence of vector search.