GraphRAG Explained: Boosting RAG Performance with Knowledge Graphs

Moving beyond similarity search to true knowledge reasoning using GraphRAG

Image Credits

Introduction

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as one of the most effective ways to ground Large Language Models (LLMs) in enterprise or domain-specific data. By retrieving relevant documents and injecting them into the LLM’s context, RAG significantly reduces hallucinations and improves factual accuracy.

However, vanilla RAG systems have limitations. They rely heavily on vector similarity search, which is fundamentally semantic but shallow. Vector search struggles with multi-hop reasoning, implicit relationships, hierarchical knowledge, and complex queries such as “Why did X happen?” or “How is A related to B through C?”

This is where Knowledge Graphs (KGs) and Graph Databases (GraphDBs) come in. By explicitly modeling entities, relationships, and structure, they complement vector search and dramatically improve RAG quality, explainability, and reasoning depth.

Why Traditional RAG Falls Short

A standard RAG pipeline looks like this:

While effective for many use cases, this approach has key weaknesses:

• Relationship blindness: Embeddings don’t explicitly encode relationships

• Poor multi-hop reasoning: Hard to answer questions that span multiple documents

• Context fragmentation: Related facts may be retrieved separately or missed entirely

• Low explainability: Difficult to justify why an answer is correct

For example:

“Which pricing decisions were influenced by city-level events last quarter?”

This is not just a semantic search problem—it’s a relationship traversal problem.

What Is a Knowledge Graph?

Knowledge Graphs provide a structured and intuitive way to organize and retrieve complex information by explicitly modeling how entities are connected. In the context of RAG, they play a critical role in enhancing the accuracy, reasoning ability, and reliability of large language models (LLMs).

A Knowledge Graph represents information as a network of interconnected entities—such as documents, concepts, people, products, or events—linked by well-defined relationships. By storing knowledge in a graph structure, it becomes easier to capture real-world complexity, preserve context, and enable multi-step reasoning that traditional text-based retrieval often struggles with.

This structured representation allows RAG systems to retrieve not just relevant information, but also the relationships and dependencies that explain why something is relevant, leading to more grounded and explainable outputs.

A Knowledge Graph is composed of:

• Entities (nodes): People, places, products, events, or concepts

• Relationships (edges): Explicit connections between entities

• Attributes (properties): Metadata describing entities or their relationships

Lets understand a knowledge graph using the below image of nodes and edges representing Steve Jobs and his related entities.

Knowledge graph. Image Credits

Entities (Nodes)

In the above image, each large colored circle is an entity:

• Steve Jobs → a person

• Apple → a company

• iPhone → a product

• San Francisco, California → locations

• 2007 → a time entity (year)

Small circles represent additional related entities that can be expanded further.

In a knowledge graph, everything important becomes a node.

Relationships (Edges)

The arrows between nodes show explicit relationships, for example:

• Steve Jobs → founder of → Apple

• Apple → headquartered in → California

• iPhone → created by → Apple

• iPhone → launched in → 2007

• Steve Jobs → born in → San Francisco

• San Francisco → located in → California

These are structured, machine-readable facts, not inferred text.

Why This Is a “Graph”?

Because:

• One entity connects to many others

• You can traverse multiple hops

Example paths:

• Steve Jobs → founder of → Apple → created → iPhone

• iPhone → launched in → 2007

• Apple → headquartered in → California → contains → San Francisco

This enables reasoning, not just lookup.

Unlike plain text or embeddings:

• Relationships are explicit, not guessed

• Answers are deterministic and explainable

• Multi-step questions are easy

Example questions this graph can answer:

• “Who founded the company that created the iPhone?”

• “Where is the company headquartered that Steve Jobs founded?”

• “In which year was the iPhone launched and by whom?”

All answered by graph traversal, not language guessing.

Role of Graph Databases (GraphDBs)

A Graph Database (Neo4j, Amazon Neptune, TigerGraph, etc.) is optimized for:

• Fast traversal across relationships

• Complex graph queries

• Pattern matching

• Multi-hop reasoning

GraphDBs excel where relational databases and vector stores struggle:

• “Find all hotels affected by events within 10km”

• “Trace the chain of causes behind a pricing change”

• “Identify indirect relationships across entities”

How Knowledge Graphs Enhance RAG

Graph RAG enhances traditional Retrieval-Augmented Generation by grounding language models in explicit knowledge structures—entities, relationships, and constraints—rather than relying solely on unstructured text retrieval. This shift significantly improves accuracy, reasoning, and trustworthiness in AI systems.

VectorDB VS Knowledge graph. Image Credits

1. Improved Relevance and Precision

Knowledge graphs organize information semantically, enabling RAG systems to retrieve data that is not only relevant in meaning but also correct in context. Instead of matching isolated text chunks, Graph RAG retrieves connected entities and their relationships, allowing the model to understand how pieces of information relate to each other.

This leads to:

• Fewer irrelevant results

• Reduced hallucinations

• More contextually grounded responses

As a result, users receive answers that are both accurate and explainable.

2. Stronger Multi-Hop Reasoning

Graph RAG excels at questions that require reasoning across multiple facts. Because relationships are explicitly stored, the system can traverse logical paths such as:

Entity → Relationship → Entity → Outcome

This enables more reliable “why,” “how,” and “impact” questions—something vector-only RAG systems often struggle with.

3. Better Data Integration Across Sources

Knowledge graphs act as a unifying layer that connects information from diverse and heterogeneous sources—documents, databases, APIs, and structured tables. By linking data through shared entities and relationships, Graph RAG enables a holistic view of information that would otherwise remain siloed.

This improves:

• Cross-system consistency

• Data reuse

• End-to-end reasoning across sources

4. Enhanced Decision-Making and Insights

By preserving relationships, constraints, and dependencies, Graph RAG provides actionable insights rather than surface-level summaries. Decision-makers can trace answers back to their underlying reasoning paths, increasing confidence and trust in AI-driven recommendations.

This is especially valuable in high-stakes domains where explainability is critical.

5. Support for Advanced RAG Architectures

Graph RAG unlocks powerful capabilities that are difficult with text-only retrieval, including:

• Hierarchical retrieval, where information is organized by categories or entity types

• Personalized recommendations, tailored using user preferences and historical interactions

• Rule-aware retrieval, enforcing domain constraints and business logic

These patterns significantly extend the usefulness of RAG systems across complex workflows.

6. Domain-Specific Accuracy at Scale

Knowledge graphs shine in specialized domains where correctness matters more than linguistic fluency. For example, a veterinary healthcare startup used a knowledge graph to link animal breeds with diseases and treatments. By grounding RAG in this structured domain knowledge, the system delivered far more accurate and relevant responses, dramatically improving clinical information retrieval.

This demonstrates how domain-specific graphs can transform RAG effectiveness.

7. Broad Industry Applicability

Graph RAG delivers tangible benefits across industries:

• Healthcare: Patient data integration, diagnosis support, treatment pathways

• Finance: Fraud detection, risk analysis, compliance reasoning

• eCommerce: Personalized recommendations, product discovery, customer support

• Customer Service: Root-cause analysis, policy-aware responses

In each case, explicit relationships enable faster, more reliable, and more interpretable AI decisions.

Graph RAG moves retrieval from “finding relevant text” to “reasoning over connected knowledge.”

Graph RAG vs Vector RAG

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) can be implemented using different retrieval paradigms. Vector RAG focuses on semantic similarity, while Graph RAG emphasizes structured reasoning over entities and relationships. Both approaches serve different purposes and are often most powerful when combined.

Image Credits

Core Difference

Aspect	Vector RAG	Graph RAG
Primary focus	Semantic similarity	Entity relationships & reasoning
Data representation	Dense embeddings	Nodes, edges, properties
Retrieval method	Nearest-neighbor search	Graph traversal
Strength	Finding relevant text	Explaining why and how

How They Work?

Vector RAG

• Converts documents into embeddings

• Retrieves chunks that are semantically similar to the query

• Excels at fuzzy matching and paraphrased questions

Graph RAG

• Models entities (people, events, products) and their relationships

• Retrieves information by traversing explicit connections

• Excels at multi-hop and constraint-based reasoning

Comparison Across Key Dimensions

Dimension	Vector RAG	Graph RAG
Setup complexity	Low	High
Retrieval accuracy	High recall, medium precision	High precision
Hallucination risk	Medium	Low
Explainability	Limited	Strong
Multi-hop reasoning	Weak	Strong
Handling constraints	Difficult	Native
Scalability	Excellent	Moderate
Maintenance effort	Lower	Higher

Example Query

Question: “Why did hotel prices increase in Miami last weekend?”

• Vector RAG: Retrieves event descriptions, demand reports, and pricing notes that sound relevant.

• Graph RAG: Traverses relationships:Event → City → Hotel → Demand spike → Pricing ruleand explains the causal chain explicitly.

When to Use Each

Use Vector RAG when:

• Data is mostly unstructured

• Queries are exploratory or conversational

• Speed and scalability matter

Use Graph RAG when:

• Relationships are central to answers

• “Why” and “impact” questions dominate

• Accuracy and explainability are critical

Strengths and Limitations: Vector RAG vs Graph RAG

Aspect	Vector RAG	Graph RAG
Primary strength	Strong semantic search and recall	Strong structured reasoning and explainability
Best at	Finding relevant text based on meaning	Explaining relationships, causality, and dependencies
Handling unstructured data	Excellent	Limited (requires structuring first)
Multi-hop reasoning	Weak	Strong
Explainability	Low to medium	High
Hallucination control	Medium	Low
Setup complexity	Low	High
Scalability	High	Moderate
Latency	Low	Medium to high
Maintenance effort	Lower	Higher
Business rule enforcement	Difficult	Native
Data freshness handling	Easy with re-indexing	Requires graph updates
Typical failure mode	Retrieves semantically similar but irrelevant chunks	Misses fuzzy or implicit semantic matches
Ideal use cases	Reviews, transcripts, FAQs, summaries	Pricing, compliance, healthcare, root-cause analysis

Components of Graph RAG

Graph RAG (Graph-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation) extends traditional RAG by grounding language models in explicit knowledge structures—entities, relationships, and graph topology. A typical Graph RAG system operates through four key components:

1. Query Processor

2. Retriever

3. Organizer

4. Generator

Together, these components transform a natural language query into a structured reasoning process, enabling more accurate and explainable outputs.

1. Query Processor

The Query Processor is responsible for understanding the user’s input and mapping it onto the structure of the knowledge graph.

Key responsibilities:

• Identify entities (nodes) and relationships (edges) in the query

• Translate natural language into graph-aware queries

How it works:

• Uses Named Entity Recognition (NER) to detect entities

• Applies relationship extraction to infer how entities are connected

• Maps extracted entities and relations to corresponding nodes and edges in the graph

• Converts the query into a graph query language such as Cypher

Example:

User query:

“Who developed the theory of relativity?”

The query processor:

• Identifies “theory of relativity” as an entity

• Identifies “developed” as a relationship

• Prepares a graph query to search for the developer of that theory

2. Retriever

The Retriever fetches relevant information from the knowledge graph based on the processed query.

Unlike traditional RAG retrievers that rely mainly on vector similarity, Graph RAG retrievers leverage both structural and semantic signals.

Retrieval techniques include:

• Graph traversal algorithms

  • Breadth-First Search (BFS)

  • Depth-First Search (DFS)

• Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) to learn structural patterns

• Adaptive retrieval

  • Dynamically adjusts how much of the graph to explore

• Graph embeddings

  • Capture both node features and relationships

Example:

User query:

“Who developed the theory of relativity?”:

The retriever:

• The retriever locates the “theory of relativity” node

• Traverses the “developed by” relationship

• Retrieves the connected node “Albert Einstein”

3. Organizer

The Organizer refines and prepares retrieved graph data before generation.

Raw graph traversal often returns extra nodes and edges. The organizer ensures the model receives clean, relevant, and compact context.

Key functions:

• Graph pruning – removes irrelevant nodes and relationships

• Re-ranking – prioritizes the most relevant subgraphs

• Graph augmentation – enriches context when needed

• Noise reduction while preserving critical relationships

Example:

From multiple retrieved connections, the organizer retains only:

Albert Einstein — developed → Theory of Relativity

All unrelated entities are discarded to maintain clarity and focus.

4. Generator

The Generator produces the final output using the curated graph context.

What it does:

• Converts structured graph data into natural language responses

• Uses LLMs to synthesize accurate, grounded answers

• Can also generate new graph structures in advanced applications (e.g., scientific discovery, KG expansion)

Example:

Using the refined graph context, the generator outputs:

“Albert Einstein developed the theory of relativity.”

Because the answer is grounded in explicit graph relationships, it is accurate, explainable, and deterministic.

Enough of theory, lets hop in to solve a realworld use case.

Problem: Standard RAG retrieves “similar text chunks,” but many real questions require connecting facts across multiple passages (multi-hop reasoning). Example pattern:

“What is the X of the person who did Y?”To answer, you must first identify the person (hop-1), then traverse to the attribute (hop-2).

GraphRAG approach:

1. Convert your corpus into a knowledge graph of entities + relationships.

2. At query time, use a vector search over entity descriptions to find the most relevant entities.

3. Traverse the graph around those entities to collect connected evidence.

4. Organize that evidence into a compact context.

5. Let the LLM generate an answer grounded in that context.

Architecture mapping to your components

• Query Processor → extract entities/intent from the user question; optionally rewrite into sub-questions.

• Retriever → (a) vector-search entities in Milvus, (b) pull their neighborhood/subgraph from GraphRAG artifacts.

• Organizer → rank/merge evidence, dedupe, build a structured prompt context.

• Generator → LLM produces final answer (with citations if you include source text-unit IDs).

Step-by-step implementation (code)

0) Setup: dependencies + Milvus

The Medium post installs a GraphRAG fork because Milvus storage support was pending at that time.

Install Python deps

Run Milvus locally (Docker Compose)

Use the official Milvus “standalone” compose (common setup). Example:

docker compose up -d

1) Data preparation (your corpus → text file(s))

The tutorial uses a Gutenberg text file and truncates it to reduce indexing cost.

2) Initialize GraphRAG workspace

python -m graphrag.index --init --root ./graphrag_index

3) Configure .env (LLM + embeddings)

Add your OpenAI key into ./graphrag_index/.env as described in the post.

Example .env:

OPENAI_API_KEY=XXXXXXXXXXX

4) Run indexing (build KG + communities + summaries)

GraphRAG indexing includes: chunking → entity/relationship extraction → clustering (Leiden) → community summaries.

python -m graphrag.index --root ./graphrag_index

After completion, GraphRAG writes parquet artifacts under:

 ./graphrag_index/output/<timestamp>/... 

5) Load GraphRAG artifacts + store entity embeddings in Milvus

This mirrors the tutorial’s “Milvus stores entity description embeddings for local search entry points.”

6) Query time: Local Search (entity → neighborhood → context → answer)

GraphRAG supports Local Search (entity-centric) and Global Search (community-summary-centric). Here’s a practical Local Search flow aligned to your components:

What happens under the hood (in plain terms):

• Query Processor finds key entities/intent.

• Retriever uses Milvus to locate semantically relevant entities, then expands into their graph neighbors.

• Organizer merges entity facts + relevant text units into a compact “answer context”.

• Generator writes the final response grounded in that context

7) Optional: Global Search (corpus-wide questions)

If your question is like “What are the top themes across the corpus?”, GraphRAG uses community summaries to answer holistically (Global Search). Implementation details vary by GraphRAG version, but the concept is: retrieve the most relevant community summaries → synthesize.

Conclusion

GraphRAG represents a decisive step forward from traditional retrieval-augmented generation by aligning how LLMs retrieve knowledge with how real-world information is structured. Instead of treating knowledge as isolated text chunks, GraphRAG models entities, relationships, and communities—allowing systems to reason across multiple hops, preserve context, and surface connections that vector similarity alone cannot capture. This shift is especially critical for complex questions where understanding how facts relate matters more than simply finding similar passages.

By combining knowledge graphs for structured reasoning with vector databases for efficient semantic entry-point discovery, GraphRAG delivers both precision and scalability. It enables LLMs to answer deeper, more trustworthy questions, while offering transparency into why an answer was produced. As enterprise use cases increasingly demand explainability, multi-hop reasoning, and domain grounding, GraphRAG is likely to become a foundational architecture—bridging the gap between symbolic knowledge representation and modern neural language models.