His point is that we, as a dev community, are not paying enough attention > to the indexing performance of our KNN algo (HNSW) and implementation, and > that it is reckless to increase / remove limits in that state. >
If the argument were... "Please hold off while I'm actively improving this, it will be ready soon and then we can adjust the limit" that might have technical merit. As it was presented it came across more like "I'm going to hold this feature lots of folk want hostage until *someone else* does something I think should be done"... I doubt that was actually what he consciously thought (I don't think anyone on this project would have that specific intention), but the context and manner have made it seem that way, and the net effect seems to be trending in that direction. If there's a way that raising the limit *prevents* working on performance that of course would be a key thing to understand. It seems to me that the exact person who's going to go on a performance crusade is the person who has a technique that they can prove works, but it's just too darn slow.... Maybe not the first person, maybe not the fifth, but it's going to be *someone* who needs it... 100% the user should know that they are "off the edge of the map" and "here there be monsters." Document it well, issue a warning, whatever. Once they've been told, and they set sail for the unknown, let them develop an itch so that they can scratch it.
