RAG Vector Chunking Simulator

Prototype retrieval-augmented generation chunking: pick a chunker, set size and overlap, then inspect per-chunk stats, token estimates, and highlighted overlap regions.

Chunking Results

Chunking statistics summary
Source Length
Chunk Size
Overlap Per Boundary
Total Chunks
Avg Chars / Chunk
Token Estimate (chars ÷ 4)

Preview With Chunk Boundaries & Overlap Highlight

Overlap (repeated text) Chunk start marker

Chunk List

List of generated chunks with character ranges and token estimates
# Range Chars Overlap Tokens (≈)

Professional Insights & Guide

The chunking math behind retrieval quality, with formulas and the edge cases that silently degrade RAG.

Core Use Case scenario

Before text is embedded and stored in a vector index, it is split into chunks. Fixed-size chunking cuts every N characters; sliding-window chunking moves forward by N − overlap characters so each new chunk reuses a tail of the previous one; semantic chunking splits on paragraph and sentence boundaries. The retriever then scores chunks against the query, and the generator reads the top-k winners. Chunk geometry directly controls how much context a single hit can carry and how likely the answer-bearing sentence is to appear inside it.

Troubleshooting & Edge-Case Failure Points

  • Sentences cut mid-phrase: a fixed-size split can orphan half a fact, and the retriever never sees the whole answer.
  • Overlap inflation: a 25% overlap adds ~33% more stored characters and embedding tokens for the same text.
  • Oversized paragraphs: semantic chunking must cap paragraph length or a single chunk can blow past the model context window.
  • Empty or whitespace-only chunks appear at the tail of short documents; the simulator filters them out.

Detailed Step-by-Step Instructions

  1. Paste or type the document you plan to index into the Document Text area.
  2. Select a chunker strategy: fixed-size, overlapping sliding window, or semantic paragraph-based.
  3. Set the chunk size in characters and the overlap percentage (ignored by semantic chunking).
  4. Press Run Chunking and read the stats table, the color-coded preview, and the per-chunk list.
  5. Copy the report to compare strategies side-by-side before committing to an embedding pipeline.

Chunking Formulas Used

chunk_start(i)  = i * chunk_size            // fixed-size
chunk_start(i)  = i * (chunk_size - overlap)// sliding window
overlap_chars   = round(chunk_size * pct / 100)
step            = chunk_size - overlap_chars
tokens          = ceil(chars / 4)           // rule-of-thumb estimate
semantic        = paragraphs, capped at chunk_size, split on sentences

How to Use the RAG Chunking Simulator

Tests how chunk size, overlap, and strategy affect retrieval quality before committing to a pipeline.

  1. Paste a representative document.
  2. Set chunk size and overlap; try strategies.
  3. Compare which chunks retrieve for sample queries.

Chunk Size, Overlap, and the Trade-off

300-800 tokens | 10-20% overlap

Chunking is lossy compression: too large (1,500+ tokens) and embeddings average meaning into mush; too small (under 200) and context fragments - the answer exists but no chunk contains enough of it. Working range: 300-800 tokens, 10-20% overlap, sized so a complete thought survives intact. Overlap exists solely to prevent answers straddling boundaries; past 20% it just duplicates retrieval. The habit that beats theory: run real queries against real docs and tune from evidence. Sentence-boundary chunking beats fixed cuts for prose; fixed is fine for logs and tables.

RAG Chunking Simulator FAQ

What chunk size should I use?

300-800 tokens with 10-20% overlap for prose. Below 200 fragments; above 1500 dilutes.

Why does overlap matter?

It stops answers being cut at boundaries. 10-20% suffices; more creates near-duplicates.

Semantic vs fixed chunking?

Semantic helps mixed prose; fixed is predictable for logs/tables. Measure on your queries.