Welcome to the final lesson in our Scaling Up RAG with Vector Databases course! Previously, we explored how to chunk large documents for efficient retrieval, store these chunks in a vector database (such as ChromaDB), and then retrieve them to build prompts for Large Language Models (LLMs). Remember, chunking and storing these text fragments provided the basic scaffolding for a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipeline.

In this lesson, we will expand on that foundation by introducing metadata-based filtering, which allows you to target specific attributes — like category or date — and make your content searches significantly more precise. By the end, you will be able to create queries that focus only on the metadata you care about, such as retrieving documents from specific categories.

Before we get hands-on, let's talk about the intuition behind metadata:

• What is Metadata, and Why Does It Matter?
  Metadata includes any labeled information that describes your text chunks. Common examples are category, date, or title. When you have a large collection of documents, a normal text-based similarity search might return results you don't actually want. But by selectively filtering on metadata, you can drastically reduce irrelevant results and ensure only the most pertinent information is retrieved.

• Real-World Example
  Imagine a large enterprise knowledge base spanning different departments (e.g., Human Resources, Technology, Finance). If you only want to see technology-related documents, applying a simple metadata filter on the category field ensures that your search never strays into HR or Finance content. This becomes particularly useful when you have specialized queries that are domain-specific and need accurate, fast retrieval.

Let's move to coding, first focusing on the metadata filter:

Here, we take an optional list of categories and build a where clause:

• A where query in ChromaDB acts like a targeted filter on the collection (similar to a WHERE clause in SQL). By specifying {"category": {"$in": categories}}, only documents with a matching category will be returned.
• The $ symbol in $in denotes a special operator in ChromaDB's query language. It's similar to MongoDB's query syntax, where operators like $in, $eq, $gt, etc. are prefixed with a dollar sign to distinguish them from regular field names. In this case, $in checks if the category value is contained within the provided list of categories.
• If no categories are passed in, the filter is set to None, which tells ChromaDB to run a broader, unfiltered search.

To begin, we need to convert the user's query into an embedding vector, which will allow us to perform a semantic search in the vector database.

Here, the embedder.embed function asynchronously transforms the input query string into a vector representation. This vector captures the semantic meaning of the query, enabling similarity-based retrieval from the vector database.

With the query embedding ready, we can now build and execute a search that leverages both the embedding and any metadata filters.

Now that we have the query embedding, the next step is to construct the query options, apply any metadata filters, and execute the search against the ChromaDB collection.

• The where_clause is built only if categories are provided, filtering results to those matching the specified categories.
• QueryOptions configures the search: it uses the query embedding, limits the number of results, and specifies which fields to include in the output.
• The collection.query call performs the actual search in ChromaDB, returning the most relevant chunks according to the embedding and any metadata filters.

Once the query is executed, we need to extract and structure the results for easy downstream use.

After executing the query, we extract the relevant fields from the results and organize them into a vector of RetrievedChunk structs for convenient downstream processing.

• The code safely extracts the lists of documents, distances, and metadata from the query result, defaulting to empty lists if any are missing.
• It then iterates over the retrieved documents, pairing each chunk with its corresponding metadata and distance score.
• Each result is wrapped in a RetrievedChunk struct, making it easy to work with the search results in the rest of your RAG pipeline.

With your results now structured, you can seamlessly integrate them into downstream tasks or present them to users as part of your RAG workflow.

Next, we can integrate this metadata-based search into our workflow. Let's try running a sample query with and without metadata filtering:

When you run the example query in the code provided using our data/corpus.json, you obtain the following output:

By default (no filter), you see documents that span both “Education” and “Technology.” Notice how Doc ID 1, despite mentioning AI, focuses more on broad computing challenges rather than teaching. Once the “Education” filter is applied, Doc ID 1 is excluded, and Doc ID 63 appears instead, emphasizing “modern classrooms” and strategies that involve integrating technology. Given the query about “AI and its impact on teaching,” Doc ID 63 is more specifically aligned with education-focused content, underscoring how metadata-based filtering can help narrowing down your search to only the most relevant subsets of your data.

In this lesson, you learned how to harness metadata-based filtering to refine search results in your RAG pipeline. You've seen that by storing category information (or any other descriptor) alongside your text chunks, you can easily pinpoint the data most relevant to your query. This makes your system significantly more robust and efficient, especially as your document collection grows.

Next, you will have the chance to practice implementing these ideas on your own in the upcoming exercises. Good luck, and keep exploring the power of metadata in RAG!