Bridging Generative AI and External Knowledge: A Review of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and Vector Database Integration

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong natural-language generation capability, but knowledge-intensive use remains limited by static parametric knowledge, hallucination, restricted access to proprietary information, and weak evidence traceability. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) addresses these limitations by retrieving external evidence at inference time, while vector databases provide the storage, indexing, filtering, and similarity-search mechanisms needed to operationalize retrieval at scale. This systematic literature review examines the joint design of RAG pipelines and vector database infrastructure, with emphasis on retrieval architectures, embedding and chunking choices, approximate-nearest-neighbour indexes, reranking, application domains, and end-to-end evaluation. The review was conducted using established systematic-review guidance and reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020. To strengthen analytical depth, the studies were appraised using a structured methodological-quality rubric and synthesized through a multidimensional comparison matrix. The evidence indicates that no single RAG or vector-database configuration dominates across retrieval quality, faithfulness, latency, throughput, storage, cost, and scalability. Building on these findings, this review proposes a unified evaluation framework covering retrieval effectiveness, generation quality, system efficiency, and dynamic-knowledge robustness. Persistent challenges include stale embeddings, index-update cost, knowledge freshness, security, privacy, explainability, and inconsistent benchmarking. The review therefore positions RAG–vector database integration as a joint retrieval-and-systems optimization problem rather than a database-selection problem alone.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation; Large Language Models, Vector Databases, Semantic Retrieval

1. Jing, Z., Su, Y., Han, Y., Yuan, B., Xu, H., Liu, C., Chen, K., & Zhang, M. (2025). When large language models meet vector databases: A survey. In 2025 Conference on Artificial Intelligence × Multimedia (AIxMM) (pp. 7–13). IEEE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Mirzaei, T., Amini, L., & Esmaeilzadeh, P. (2024). Clinician voices on ethics of LLM integration in healthcare: A thematic analysis of ethical concerns and implications. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 24, Article 250. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Susanty, M., & Zola, A. R. (2026). Architecting a low-latency RAG system for fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) customer support: A case study in industrial software deployment. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 17(6), 848–855. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Wang, J., Hanson, E., Li, G., Papakonstantinou, Y., Simhadri, H., & Xie, C. (2024). Vector databases: What’s really new and what’s next? (VLDB 2024 panel). Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 17(12), 4505–4506. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Antonov, I. V., & Bruttan, I. V. (2025). Using RAG technology and large language models to search for documents and obtain information in corporate information systems. Computer Research and Modeling, 17(5), 871–888. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Pan, J. J., Wang, J., & Li, G. (2024). Vector database management techniques and systems. In Companion of the 2024 International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD-Companion ’24) (pp. 597–604). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Yamane, N., Zielewski, M. R., Nakamura, T., & Suganuma, T. (2025). Chimera-VDB: Mixed-Precision Vector Database with HNSW Index for RAG-LLM. APSys ’25: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGOPS Asia-Pacific Workshop on Systems, 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/3725783.3764411. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Nandi, S. P., Nutalapati, V., Venganti, V., & Soni, V. (2026). A comparative performance analysis: Vector search vs. graph databases for RAG applications. In 2026 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Systems, and Emerging Technologies (ICAISET). IEEE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Ren, Z., Doekemeijer, K., Apparao, P., & Trivedi, A. (2025). Storage-based approximate nearest neighbor search: What are the performance, cost, and I/O characteristics? In 2025 IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization (IISWC) (pp. 407–422). IEEE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering (EBSE Technical Report No. EBSE-2007-01). Keele University and Durham University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Okoli, C. (2015). A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37, 879–910 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . . Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K., & Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: A product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Lancaster University [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Gao, X., & Chang, X. (2025). A retrieval-augmented generation framework based on a knowledge graph of cybersecurity vulnerabilities in power networks. IEEE Access, 13, 186693–186710. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Es, S., James, J., Espinosa Anke, L., & Schockaert, S. (2024). RAGAs: Automated evaluation of retrieval augmented generation. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations (pp. 150–158). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Saad-Falcon, J., Khattab, O., Potts, C., & Zaharia, M. (2024). ARES: An automated evaluation framework for retrieval-augmented generation systems. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) (pp. 338–354). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., Küttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W.-T., Rocktäschel, T., Riedel, S., & Kiela, D. (2020). Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 9459–9474. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Indirect Effect of Liquidity and Activity on Company Value with Profitability as an Intervening Variable
• Effect of Financial Skills, Knowledge, and Attitude on The Financial Behaviour of Clergy
• A Decade of Review: Trends in Budget Execution and Financial Performance of Development Projects in Tanzania (2014/15-2023/24)
• The Influence of Pre-Project Planning on the Budget Absorption Rate of Public Funded Infrastructure Projects in Kenya a Comparative Case Study of Narok, Migori, and Kisii County Government Projects
• Assessment of Factors Influencing Digital Transformation in Hotels’ Facility Management in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria