Is this a video course?

No. This is an interactive, slide-based learning platform. Each lesson has rich text, animated diagrams, live code editors, and quizzes. You learn by reading, interacting, and doing, not by watching videos passively.

How long do I have access?

Forever. Both pricing tiers are one-time payments with lifetime access. This includes all current 766 lessons and any future content we add.

What level of experience do I need?

None. We start from absolute basics like 'What is latency?' and build up to distributed consensus protocols. The Foundation level assumes zero prior knowledge of system design.

How much does the system design course cost?

7.99 US dollars for lifetime access globally, or 499 Indian rupees for lifetime access in India. One-time payment, no subscription, no hidden fees. 11 lessons are free with no signup required.

What technologies are covered?

Everything from DNS and load balancers to Kubernetes, Kafka, distributed databases, consensus protocols, stream processing, security architecture, and observability. We cover principles and real-world implementations used at Netflix, Google, Amazon, Uber, Stripe, and more.

Is this useful for system design interview preparation?

Yes. The lessons are structured around the exact topics asked in system design interviews at FAANG and top-tier companies. Interactive diagrams help you practice whiteboard-style explanations. Covers everything from URL shortener design to distributed payment systems.

How is this different from ByteByteGo or Educative?

766 interactive lessons (4x more than most competitors), 16 different diagram types that build step by step, real production examples from Netflix, Google, Amazon, Uber, and Stripe, and lifetime access for a one-time payment of $7.99 instead of annual subscriptions costing 100 to 200 dollars per year.

How do I tell whether a wrong RAG answer is a retrieval failure or a generation failure?

Check retrieval first: were the chunks labeled relevant to the query, including the answer-bearing one, present in the retrieved top-k. If they were missing, it is a retrieval failure and the fix is in chunking, embeddings, reranking, k, or query rewriting. If they were present, check faithfulness next: unsupported claims with the answer in context indict generation, and the fix is in the prompt, a claim gate, or the model.

What does high faithfulness with a wrong answer mean in RAG evaluation?

It is the signature of a retrieval failure. Faithfulness only checks whether the answer is supported by the retrieved context, so a model that honestly summarizes the wrong or incomplete chunks scores high while giving a wrong answer. This is why faithfulness dashboards can look green during a retrieval regression, and why recall against labeled gold chunks must be checked before faithfulness is trusted.

Can I compute RAG evaluation metrics without an LLM judge?

Recall@k and context precision need no judge at all: once a human has labeled the relevant chunk ids per query, both are set arithmetic over the retrieved ids and can run in CI on every commit. Faithfulness and answer relevance need per-claim verdicts, which an LLM judge can produce at scale, but a small human-labeled sample should be kept to check the judge's agreement before its scores are trusted.

How many queries does a RAG eval set need?

There is no universally correct number, but a labeled set in the tens to low hundreds of real production queries is typically enough to localize failures and tell whether a system is retrieval-bound or generation-bound. Coverage across intent clusters matters more than raw count, and a small set with gold chunk labels and reference answers is worth more than a large set without them.

What does the RAGAS framework actually measure?

RAGAS measures faithfulness by splitting the answer into claims and checking each against the retrieved context, context precision as a rank-weighted average of precision at the ranks holding relevant chunks, and answer relevancy by generating questions from the answer and comparing them to the question asked. Its metrics are computed by LLM judges, so scores carry judge noise and are most reliable as relative comparisons under the same judge.

Why is a claim that is true in the world still counted as unfaithful in RAG?

Because faithfulness tests support by the retrieved context, not truth in the world. A true claim absent from the context came from the model's training memory, which is unauditable, goes stale, and cannot be fixed by updating a document. Rewarding it trains the system to bypass the corpus, which produces confidently wrong answers as soon as the memory is out of date.

An eval example shows faithfulness 0.95, but the answer is wrong and the labeled answer-bearing chunk is absent from the retrieved top-k. What happened, and where is the fix?

Retrieval failed; the model faithfully summarized context that lacked the answer, so the fix is in chunking, embeddings, reranking, or k, High faithfulness with a wrong answer is the signature of the deceptive cell in the 2x2: retrieval bad, generation good. Faithfulness only measures support by the retrieved context, so a model grounding honestly to the wrong material scores high while answering wrong. The gold chunk's absence from the top-k confirms it: the failure was settled at the index, and prompt work would attack a stage that did its job.

Systems A and B retrieve the same three relevant chunks for a query. A ranks them 1, 2, 3; B ranks them 2, 4, 5. Which statement is correct?

Recall is identical; context precision is higher for A, and the ordering matters because the generator receives an ordered prompt and models use buried mid-context material worse, Recall counts membership in the top-k, so both systems score the same. Context precision is rank-weighted: A's readings are 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 for a score of 1.00, while B's are 0.50, 0.50, 0.60 for about 0.53. The difference matters because the generator experiences an ordered prompt, and the Lost in the Middle results show models use information buried mid-context worse than material at the edges. Faithfulness could go either way; nothing about ranking forces it lower.

A generated claim is factually true, but no retrieved chunk supports it. How should faithfulness score it, and why?

Unsupported, because faithfulness tests entailment by the retrieved context, and a memory-sourced claim bypasses the auditable, updatable corpus RAG exists to use, The test is support by the provided context, never truth in the world. A true but unsupported claim came from training memory, which cannot be audited and goes stale silently. Scoring it as faithful rewards the model for ignoring the corpus, and the same behavior produces confidently wrong answers the moment memory and reality diverge. The check's implementer does not change the definition.

A batch rollup shows: retrieval failed on 8 of 20 queries; generation failed on 3 of the 12 queries with good retrieval; naive average faithfulness is 0.80. Where should the next sprint go, and why is the average misleading?

Retrieval, because its 40 percent failure rate exceeds the 25 percent generation rate, and the average faithfulness is propped up by grounded answers built on wrong context, The system is retrieval-bound: a 40 percent retrieval failure rate against a 25 percent generation failure rate measured only where generation had correct context. The naive faithfulness average is inflated by the deceptive cell, where models ground honestly to the wrong material and score high while answering wrong, so the batch can brush the 0.80 gate while nearly half its queries never saw their answer. The conditioning matters too: scoring generation over all 20 queries would bill it for retrieval's misses.

RAG Evaluation: Localizing Failure Between Retrieval and Generation

Name: System Design Masterclass
Availability: InStock

in Retrieval Rag

This lesson is part of the ML Platform Engineering course. Unlock the full course, a separate one-time payment, for lifetime access.

One-time payment. Lifetime access. No subscription.

Global

$20/lifetime

One-time payment via PayPal

Get Lifetime Access

5 Foundation lessons free, try before you buy

India Special

India

₹999/lifetime

One-time via UPI, cards, or net banking

Get Lifetime Access

5 Foundation lessons free, try before you buy

“The interactive diagrams alone are worth way more than the price.”

Anish K., Senior Engineer at a Bengaluru startup

Every ML Platform lesson, Foundation to Advanced

Real architecture diagrams with real tool logos

MLOps, LLMOps, and data engineering in depth

Quizzes with instant feedback

Built and reviewed by senior engineers

Lifetime access, all future content included

The first 5 Foundation lessons of this course are free, no payment needed. Try them now