Course
Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) with LangChain
3 hr
17.6K
RAG with LangChain
Integrate external data with LLMs using Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) and LangChain.
Why Use RAG to Improve LLMs? An Example
To better demonstrate what RAG is and how the technique works, let’s consider a scenario that many businesses today face.
Imagine you are an executive for an electronics company that sells devices like smartphones and laptops. You want to create a customer support chatbot for your company to answer user queries related to product specifications, troubleshooting, warranty information, and more.
You’d like to use an LLM to power your chatbot. However, as I already hinted at, large language models have some important limitations, leading to an inefficient customer experience:
Lack of specific information
Language models are limited to providing generic answers based on their training data. If users were to ask questions specific to the software you sell, or if they have queries on how to perform in-depth troubleshooting, a traditional LLM may not be able to provide accurate answers.
This is because they haven’t been trained on data specific to your organization. Furthermore, the training data of these models have a cutoff date, limiting their ability to provide up-to-date responses.
Hallucinations
LLMs can “hallucinate,” which means that they tend to confidently generate false responses based on imagined facts. These algorithms can also provide responses that are off-topic if they don’t have an accurate answer to the user’s query, leading to a bad customer experience.
Generic responses
Language models often provide generic responses that aren’t tailored to specific contexts. This can be a major drawback in a customer support scenario since individual user preferences are usually required to facilitate a personalized customer experience.
RAG effectively bridges these gaps by providing you with a way to integrate the general knowledge base of LLMs with the ability to access specific information, such as the data present in your product database and user manuals. This methodology allows for highly accurate and reliable responses that are tailored to your organization’s needs.
How Does RAG Work?
A typical RAG pipeline has two phases: an offline indexing phase (preparing your data) and a real-time inference phase (answering queries). Here are the key steps.
Step 1: Data collection
You must first gather all the data that is needed for your application. In the case of a customer support chatbot for an electronics company, this can include user manuals, a product database, and a list of FAQs.
Step 2: Data chunking
Data chunking is the process of breaking your data down into smaller, more manageable pieces. For instance, if you have a lengthy 100-page user manual, you might break it down into different sections, each potentially answering different customer questions.
This way, each chunk of data is focused on a specific topic. When a piece of information is retrieved from the source dataset, it is more likely to be directly applicable to the user’s query, since we avoid including irrelevant information from entire documents.
This also improves efficiency, since the system can quickly obtain the most relevant pieces of information instead of processing entire documents.
Step 3: Document embeddings
Now that the source data has been broken down into smaller parts, it needs to be converted into a vector representation. This involves transforming text data into embeddings, which are numeric representations that capture the semantic meaning behind text.
Document embeddings let the system match user queries to relevant information based on meaning rather than exact keyword overlap. A query about “fix my laptop screen” will match a chunk about “display troubleshooting” even though the words differ.
If you’d like to learn more about how text data is converted into vector representations, check out our tutorial on text embeddings with the OpenAI API.
Step 4: Handling user queries
When a user query enters the system, it must also be converted into an embedding or vector representation. The same model must be used for both the document and query embedding to ensure uniformity between the two.
Once the query is converted into an embedding, the system compares the query embedding with the document embeddings. It identifies and retrieves chunks whose embeddings are most similar to the query embedding, using measures such as cosine similarity and Euclidean distance.
These chunks are considered to be the most relevant to the user’s query.
Step 5: Generating responses with an LLM
The retrieved text chunks, along with the initial user query, are fed into a language model. The algorithm will use this information to generate a coherent response to the user’s questions through a chat interface.
Here is a simplified flowchart summarizing how RAG works:
To build this pipeline in practice, you can use a framework like LlamaIndex or LangChain.
Both frameworks handle the orchestration of chunking, embedding, retrieval, and prompt construction, so you can focus on your data and use case rather than plumbing.
Practical Applications of RAG
Beyond the customer support chatbot example above, RAG has several other practical applications:
Text summarization
RAG can use content from external sources to produce accurate summaries, resulting in considerable time savings. For instance, managers and high-level executives are busy people who don’t have the time to sift through extensive reports.
With an RAG-powered application, they can quickly tap into the most critical findings from text data and make decisions more efficiently instead of having to read through lengthy documents.
Personalized recommendations
RAG systems can be used to analyze customer data, such as past purchases and reviews, to generate product recommendations. This will increase the user’s overall experience and ultimately generate more revenue for the organization.
For example, RAG applications can be used to recommend better movies on streaming platforms based on the user’s viewing history and ratings. They can also be used to analyze written reviews on e-commerce platforms.
Since LLMs excel at understanding the semantics behind text data, RAG systems can provide users with personalized suggestions that are more nuanced than those of a traditional recommendation system.
Business intelligence
Organizations make business decisions by tracking competitor behavior and market trends across reports, financial statements, and research documents.
An RAG application can surface relevant findings from these documents on demand, cutting the time analysts spend reading through hundreds of pages.
Challenges and Best Practices of Implementing RAG Systems
The basic retrieve-and-generate pattern works well for simple use cases, but production deployments introduce engineering challenges at every stage of the pipeline.
Integration complexity
It can be difficult to integrate a retrieval system with an LLM. This complexity increases when there are multiple sources of external data in varying formats. Data that is fed into an RAG system must be consistent, and the embeddings generated need to be uniform across all data sources.
To overcome this challenge, separate modules can be designed to handle different data sources independently. The data within each module can then be preprocessed for uniformity, and a standardized model can be used to ensure that the embeddings have a consistent format.
Scalability
As the amount of data increases, it gets more challenging to maintain the efficiency of the RAG system. Many complex operations need to be performed - such as generating embeddings, comparing the meaning between different pieces of text, and retrieving data in real-time.
These tasks are computationally intensive and can slow down the system as the size of the source data increases.
To address this challenge, you can distribute computational load across different servers and invest in robust hardware infrastructure. To improve response time, it might also be beneficial to cache queries that are frequently asked.
Vector databases like Pinecone, ChromaDB, FAISS, and Weaviate are purpose-built for this problem. They store embeddings and perform fast approximate nearest-neighbor (ANN) search, returning the most relevant chunks in milliseconds even across millions of documents.
For a hands-on walkthrough, see our tutorial on vector databases with Pinecone, or learn how to build a complete RAG system with LangChain and FastAPI.
Data quality
The effectiveness of an RAG system depends heavily on the quality of data being fed into it. If the source content accessed by the application is poor, the responses generated will be inaccurate.
Organizations must invest in a diligent content curation and fine-tuning process. It is necessary to refine data sources to enhance their quality. For commercial applications, it can be beneficial to involve a subject matter expert to review and fill in any information gaps before using the dataset in an RAG system.
Advanced RAG Techniques
The basic RAG pipeline works, but it has known failure modes: irrelevant retrieval, lost context in long documents, and inability to reason across multiple sources. Several techniques have emerged to address these gaps.
- Agentic RAG: Uses an AI agent to decide when and what to retrieve, reformulate queries, and chain multiple retrieval steps together. Useful when a single retrieval pass is not enough.
- GraphRAG: Structures knowledge as a graph instead of flat chunks, preserving relationships between entities. Performs well on questions that require connecting facts across documents.
- Self-RAG: The model decides whether retrieval is needed and critiques its own output for factual grounding, reducing unnecessary retrieval calls.
- Corrective RAG (CRAG): Evaluates retrieved documents for relevance before passing them to the generator, filtering out noise.
- Multimodal RAG: Extends retrieval beyond text to include images, tables, and other media types.
- Contextual retrieval: Adds document-level context to each chunk before embedding, so the retriever understands where each chunk fits in the broader document.
For a broader overview of optimization strategies, see our guide on how to improve RAG performance.
RAG vs. Fine-Tuning
A common question is whether to use RAG or fine-tuning to customize an LLM. The short answer: they solve different problems, and many production systems use both. For a detailed comparison, see our guide on RAG vs. fine-tuning.
| Criteria | RAG | Fine-Tuning |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge updates | Swap documents without retraining | Requires retraining on new data |
| Cost | Lower (no GPU training needed) | Higher (GPU hours + data prep) |
| Hallucination control | Strong (answers grounded in retrieved docs) | Moderate (depends on training data) |
| Domain adaptation | Good for factual recall | Better for style, tone, and reasoning patterns |
| Latency | Higher (retrieval step adds time) | Lower (no retrieval overhead) |
| Best for | Dynamic knowledge, FAQ bots, document Q&A | Specialized tasks, consistent output format |
Final Thoughts
RAG remains the most widely adopted technique for grounding LLM outputs in external knowledge. It directly addresses the core limitations of language models—stale training data, hallucinations, and lack of domain specificity—without the cost and complexity of fine-tuning.
That said, RAG is only as good as the data you feed it. Poor-quality or outdated source documents will produce poor answers, regardless of how capable the LLM is. Human oversight remains necessary, especially for high-stakes applications.
Good data curation, combined with domain expertise, is what separates a useful RAG system from one that confidently returns wrong answers.
To get hands-on with RAG, I recommend our RAG with LangChain course, which walks through building a complete retrieval pipeline from scratch. For a deeper dive into LLM fundamentals, check out the LLMs Concepts course.
