MongoDB Atlas Vector Search RAG for Document Workflows on AWS (A Practical Blueprint)
Key Takeaways
- RAG is most valuable when connected to a workflow and a schema.
- Store page level provenance and citations from day one.
- Use MongoDB Atlas Vector Search with tenant scoped filters.
- Add evaluation and monitoring so quality does not drift silently.
Retrieval augmented generation (RAG) is most valuable when it is attached to a real workflow: intake, search, extraction, and decision support. This post outlines a practical architecture that pairs AWS storage and compute with MongoDB Atlas Vector Search to power grounded Q and A over documents, with auditable citations.
What teams usually get wrong about RAG
Common failure modes:
- Treating RAG as a chatbot, not a workflow component
- Indexing messy text without page level provenance
- No evaluation plan, which makes quality feel random
- No access control model, which becomes a security problem
The core requirement: citations and traceability
If a user asks "why" or "where did this come from", your system should point to:
- Document ID
- Page number
- Bounding box or paragraph span
- Extraction timestamp and model versions
That is how you keep RAG usable for operations, not just demos.
Reference architecture (AWS plus MongoDB)
Ingestion
- Upload PDF to S3
- Extract text using Textract or an OCR pipeline
- Normalize into page chunks with stable IDs
References:
Storage and indexing
Use MongoDB as the system of record:
- Store chunk text and metadata
- Store embeddings per chunk
- Use Atlas Vector Search for kNN retrieval
References:
Query flow
- User question enters API
- Retrieve top k chunks with tenant scoped filter
- Assemble prompt with citations
- Call LLM
- Return answer plus sources
Chunking strategy that works in practice
Chunking is a product decision. Recommended baseline:
- Chunk per page, then split by headings or paragraph length
- Keep chunk size consistent, for example 300 to 800 tokens
- Add overlap when sections run long
Metadata you should store per chunk:
tenantId
documentId
pageNumber
chunkIndex
sourceType (OCR, native PDF text)
hash for dedupe
Embeddings choices
Pick an embedding model that fits your latency and cost constraints. Two practical rules:
- Use one embedding model consistently so similarity scores are comparable
- Re embed only when you change the model or chunking
You also need an evaluation set. See:
Security model: tenant isolation and least privilege
At minimum:
- Use per tenant filters in your vector query
- Enforce authorization server side, never in the UI
- Encrypt documents at rest, and use private networking where possible
References:
Evaluation: make RAG measurable
Add simple, repeatable tests:
- Retrieval quality: does the correct page appear in top k
- Groundedness: do answers cite retrieved chunks
- Task success: did a user reach the next workflow step
Useful overview:
Where Lid Vizion fits
We typically help teams:
- Build ingestion pipelines on AWS
- Store structured outputs and workflow state in MongoDB
- Add RAG safely, with citations and tenant scoped retrieval
zation in the API layer for every request.
FAQs
Q: Can we do RAG without embeddings?
You can start with keyword search, but embeddings usually improve semantic matching. Many teams use both, keyword search for precision and vector for recall.
Q: Does Vector Search replace a full search product?
Not always. Atlas Search provides rich filtering and ranking. Vector Search can be combined with it for hybrid retrieval.
Q: How do we avoid leaking data across tenants?
Enforce tenant filtering inside the database query, and validate authori
Q: What should we link to internally?
A: Link to relevant solution pages like Computer Vision or Document Intelligence, and only link to published blog URLs on the main domain. Avoid staging links.