LLM Response Caching: Exact and Semantic Cache Implementation

We design and deploy artificial intelligence systems: from prototype to production-ready solutions. Our team combines expertise in machine learning, data engineering and MLOps to make AI work not in the lab, but in real business.
Showing 1 of 1All 1564 services
LLM Response Caching: Exact and Semantic Cache Implementation
Medium
~2-3 days
Frequently Asked Questions

AI Development Areas

AI Solution Development Stages

Latest works

  • image_website-b2b-advance_0.webp
    B2B ADVANCE company website development
    1358
  • image_web-applications_feedme_466_0.webp
    Development of a web application for FEEDME
    1251
  • image_websites_belfingroup_462_0.webp
    Website development for BELFINGROUP
    957
  • image_ecommerce_furnoro_435_0.webp
    Development of an online store for the company FURNORO
    1188
  • image_logo-advance_0.webp
    B2B Advance company logo design
    646
  • image_crm_enviok_479_0.webp
    Development of a web application for Enviok
    929

LLM queries are expensive and slow. Especially when 30–40% of them are duplicates or semantically similar. LLM caching is the cheapest way to reduce both. With 10 years of experience in AI/ML and over 50 caching implementation projects, we deliver turnkey systems: from simple exact match to semantic search via embeddings. Exact cache achieves up to 35% hit rate, Semantic cache adds another 28%, and together they cover 63% of queries without calling an LLM. At a typical load of 5000 queries/day, that's over $2,100/month savings. We'll assess your project in 1 day — just contact us.

The main pain point is every repeated request to GPT-4o or Claude hits the API and costs money. With 5000 queries/day, 30% are duplicates. Exact cache on Redis returns a response in 5–15 ms instead of 2–5 seconds — that's 100x faster. Semantic cache adds another 20–28% of matches by meaning, even with different wording. Context gaps from frequent similar questions are also eliminated — the cache guarantees a stable response without hallucinations.

How Exact Cache Works

Simple: we hash the prompt (messages, model, temperature) and store the answer in Redis. On a repeat request with the same hash, we return it without an LLM call. Suitable for FAQs, forms, template queries.

import hashlib
import json
import redis
from typing import Optional
from functools import wraps

class ExactLLMCache:

    def __init__(self, redis_url: str = "redis://localhost:6379", ttl: int = 3600):
        self.redis = redis.from_url(redis_url)
        self.ttl = ttl

    def _make_key(self, messages: list[dict], model: str, temperature: float) -> str:
        """Creates cache key from request parameters"""
        cache_input = {
            "messages": messages,
            "model": model,
            "temperature": temperature,
        }
        content = json.dumps(cache_input, sort_keys=True, ensure_ascii=False)
        return f"llm:exact:{hashlib.sha256(content.encode()).hexdigest()}"

    def get(self, messages: list[dict], model: str, temperature: float = 0) -> Optional[str]:
        key = self._make_key(messages, model, temperature)
        cached = self.redis.get(key)
        if cached:
            return cached.decode()
        return None

    def set(self, messages: list[dict], model: str, temperature: float, response: str):
        key = self._make_key(messages, model, temperature)
        self.redis.setex(key, self.ttl, response.encode())

    def cached_complete(self, complete_fn):
        """Decorator for caching functions"""
        @wraps(complete_fn)
        def wrapper(messages, model="gpt-4o", temperature=0, **kwargs):
            cached = self.get(messages, model, temperature)
            if cached:
                return cached

            result = complete_fn(messages, model=model, temperature=temperature, **kwargs)
            self.set(messages, model, temperature, result)
            return result
        return wrapper

Why Add Semantic Cache?

Exact cache only catches identical requests, but users often rephrase. Semantic Cache solves this: convert the question to an embedding, search a vector DB for similar ones, and if similarity >92%, return the answer. Effective for chats where wording varies.

from openai import OpenAI
import numpy as np
from dataclasses import dataclass

@dataclass
class CachedEntry:
    query_embedding: list[float]
    question: str
    answer: str
    model: str
    created_at: float

class SemanticLLMCache:
    """Cache based on semantic question similarity"""

    def __init__(
        self,
        similarity_threshold: float = 0.92,
        max_entries: int = 10000,
    ):
        self.openai = OpenAI()
        self.threshold = similarity_threshold
        self.entries: list[CachedEntry] = []

    def _get_embedding(self, text: str) -> list[float]:
        response = self.openai.embeddings.create(
            model="text-embedding-3-small",
            input=text,
        )
        return response.data[0].embedding

    def _cosine_similarity(self, a: list[float], b: list[float]) -> float:
        a_arr = np.array(a)
        b_arr = np.array(b)
        return np.dot(a_arr, b_arr) / (np.linalg.norm(a_arr) * np.linalg.norm(b_arr))

    def get(self, question: str, model: str = None) -> Optional[str]:
        """Find similar question in cache"""
        if not self.entries:
            return None

        query_embedding = self._get_embedding(question)

        best_similarity = 0
        best_answer = None

        for entry in self.entries:
            if model and entry.model != model:
                continue

            similarity = self._cosine_similarity(query_embedding, entry.query_embedding)
            if similarity > best_similarity:
                best_similarity = similarity
                best_answer = entry.answer

        if best_similarity >= self.threshold:
            return best_answer
        return None

    def set(self, question: str, answer: str, model: str):
        """Add entry to cache"""
        import time
        embedding = self._get_embedding(question)
        entry = CachedEntry(
            query_embedding=embedding,
            question=question,
            answer=answer,
            model=model,
            created_at=time.time(),
        )
        self.entries.append(entry)

        # Limit cache size
        if len(self.entries) > 10000:
            self.entries = sorted(self.entries, key=lambda e: e.created_at)[-10000:]

Comparison of Exact and Semantic Cache

Characteristic Exact Cache Semantic Cache
Principle Prompt hash Vector similarity
Storage Redis ChromaDB / Qdrant
Latency 5–15 ms 50–100 ms
Hit rate up to 35% up to 28%
Use case Frequent repeated requests Semantically similar questions
Implementation complexity Low Medium

Combined Cache: Redis + Vector Store

In production we combine both: first check exact cache (Redis), then semantic (ChromaDB). This gives minimal latency and maximum hit rate.

import chromadb
import time

class ProductionSemanticCache:
    """Production-ready cache: Redis for exact, Chroma for semantic"""

    def __init__(self):
        self.redis = redis.from_url("redis://localhost:6379")
        self.chroma = chromadb.HttpClient(host="localhost", port=8000)
        self.collection = self.chroma.get_or_create_collection("llm_cache")
        self.openai = OpenAI()
        self.similarity_threshold = 0.93
        self.exact_ttl = 3600
        self.semantic_ttl = 86400  # 24 hours

    def get(self, question: str, model: str) -> Optional[dict]:
        # 1. Exact match first (fast)
        exact_key = f"llm:exact:{hashlib.md5(f'{question}:{model}'.encode()).hexdigest()}"
        exact_hit = self.redis.get(exact_key)
        if exact_hit:
            return {"answer": exact_hit.decode(), "cache_type": "exact"}

        # 2. Semantic match
        embedding = self.openai.embeddings.create(
            model="text-embedding-3-small",
            input=question,
        ).data[0].embedding

        results = self.collection.query(
            query_embeddings=[embedding],
            n_results=1,
            where={"model": model},
        )

        if results["distances"] and results["distances"][0]:
            distance = results["distances"][0][0]
            similarity = 1 - distance  # Chroma uses cosine distance

            if similarity >= self.similarity_threshold:
                answer = results["documents"][0][0]
                return {"answer": answer, "cache_type": "semantic", "similarity": similarity}

        return None

    def set(self, question: str, answer: str, model: str):
        # Exact cache in Redis
        exact_key = f"llm:exact:{hashlib.md5(f'{question}:{model}'.encode()).hexdigest()}"
        self.redis.setex(exact_key, self.exact_ttl, answer.encode())

        # Semantic cache in Chroma
        embedding = self.openai.embeddings.create(
            model="text-embedding-3-small",
            input=question,
        ).data[0].embedding

        self.collection.add(
            ids=[f"{int(time.time())}_{hash(question)}"],
            embeddings=[embedding],
            documents=[answer],
            metadatas=[{"model": model, "question": question, "created_at": time.time()}],
        )

How to Measure Cache Effectiveness?

We deploy metrics: hit rate (fraction of requests served from cache), p95 latency, cost per request. Typical results: exact hit 35%, semantic hit 28%, average latency drops from 2.3s to 0.4s. We use dashboards with alerts when hit rate falls below threshold. The 92% similarity threshold is empirically chosen to minimize false positives while preserving 95% of relevant matches. At threshold 0.95, hit rate drops 12%; at 0.90, incorrect responses increase.

Case Study: FAQ Bot with 5000 Queries/Day

One of our clients is a technical support service. Before caching, all requests went directly to GPT-4o. Results after configuring combined cache:

Metric Before Cache After Cache
LLM cost 100% 37%
Average latency 2.3s 0.4s
Exact hit rate 0% 35%
Semantic hit rate 0% 28%

Savings of 63% — just from caching, without changing the model. In monetary terms, that's over $2,100/month. Get an engineer consultation — we'll calculate savings for your project.

What Our Work Includes

  1. Analytics — audit your requests, identify patterns, estimate potential hit rate.
  2. Architecture — choose stack (Redis / Chroma / Qdrant), design cache schema.
  3. Implementation — write production code (Python, integrate with your LLM provider).
  4. Testing — A/B test with latency and cost measurements on your data.
  5. Monitoring — hit rate dashboard, latency dashboard, alerts on efficiency drops.
  6. Documentation and training — transfer code, provide instructions, train your team.

Estimated Timelines

  • Exact cache (Redis): 0.5–1 day
  • Semantic cache (Chroma + embeddings): 2–3 days
  • Full production solution with monitoring: 1 week

We guarantee stable cache operation, post-implementation support, and transparent reporting. Order a project audit — we'll evaluate hit rate and savings in 1 day.

LLM Development: Fine-Tuning, RAG, Agents, and Production Deployment

Using GPT‑4 or Claude 3.5 Sonnet through a public API is not a solution — it's just a tool. When the requirement is to "make it like ChatGPT, but on our data," there is a real engineering challenge behind it: from prompt engineering to training a 70B model on your own infrastructure. End-to-end LLM solution development is a complex stack, and we have been doing it for over 5 years. During this time, we have completed over 20 projects in generative AI: from RAG systems for legal departments to custom support agents. Where exactly your task falls depends on data, latency requirements, budget, and how critical confidentiality is.

A typical situation: the client has already tried ChatGPT, but results are unstable — sometimes accurate, sometimes hallucinating. Or they need integration into a corporate portal while complying with security policies. Let's break down each layer of the stack in detail — from RAG to production deployment.

Why Do RAG Systems Break and How to Fix It?

RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) looks simple: find relevant documents, put them in context, get an answer. In practice, it fails in several places.

Chunking without overlap. Classic mistake: chunk_size=512, overlap=0. If the answer lies across two chunks, retrieval won't find either with sufficient confidence. Solution: overlap 15–25% of chunk_size, or better yet, sentence-aware splitting with spaCy or NLTK instead of naive character splitting.

Poor embedder. text-embedding-ada-002 is good for general use, but on legal or medical texts, specialized models like E5-large-v2, BGE-M3, or fine-tuned sentence-transformers on domain data outperform it. Recall@5 differences can be 15–25%.

No re-ranking. Vector search optimizes for speed, not relevance. A cross-encoder re-ranker (ms-marco-MiniLM-L-6-v2, bge-reranker-large) after initial retrieval improves top-3 accuracy with acceptable latency (+50–150ms). This is often more impactful than improving the embedding model.

Hybrid search. Dense vectors alone work poorly on exact queries: names, SKUs, codes. BM25 (sparse) finds exact matches but misses semantics. Hybrid via RRF (Reciprocal Rank Fusion) is the optimal compromise. Qdrant, Weaviate, and pgvector 0.7+ support hybrid search natively.

Typical production architecture for a corporate knowledge base
  1. Documents → preprocessing (PyMuPDF, Unstructured)
  2. Chunking → embedding (BGE-M3)
  3. Qdrant (hybrid dense+sparse)
  4. Cross-encoder re-ranking
  5. Context → LLM (vLLM or OpenAI API)
  6. Answer with sources (RAGAS for quality evaluation)

When to Fine-Tune Instead of Prompt Engineering?

Prompt engineering solves ~70% of LLM adaptation tasks for a domain. The remaining 30% require fine-tuning. Three indicators: the model ignores a specific output format even with detailed prompting; the task requires deep knowledge of specialized vocabulary (medicine, law); you need to significantly reduce token costs by replacing a large model with a smaller specialized one.

LoRA and QLoRA are the standard for SFT. LoRA adds trainable low-rank matrices to attention layers. A typical configuration for Llama-3 8B: r=64, lora_alpha=128, target_modules=["q_proj","v_proj","k_proj","o_proj"] yields ~0.8% trainable parameters, training on one A100 40GB. QLoRA adds 4-bit quantization (NF4) and allows fine-tuning 70B models on two A100 40GB, though speed drops by half compared to bf16.

DPO instead of RLHF. Direct Preference Optimization requires only (chosen, rejected) pairs, not scalar reward signals. DPOTrainer from the trl library (Hugging Face) implements it in a few dozen lines.

Common mistake. A dataset of 500 examples, 5 epochs, validation loss 0.8 — seems fine. But on test, the model degrades on general instructions. Cause: catastrophic forgetting. Solution: add 10–20% general instruction-following examples (Alpaca, FLAN) to the training set to preserve original capabilities.

How to Choose a Base Model: 8B or 70B?

Model Parameters Strengths Context
Llama-3.1 8B 8B Quality/speed balance 128k
Llama-3.1 70B 70B Complex reasoning 128k
Mistral 7B / Mixtral 8x7B 7B / 47B Efficiency for size 32k
Qwen2.5 72B 72B Code, multilingual 128k
Gemma 2 27B 27B Open license 8k

For most tasks, fine-tuning an 8B model is sufficient. 70B is needed when deep reasoning is required or the 8B baseline does not reach the required quality even after fine-tuning. Inference cost for Llama-3 8B via vLLM on A100 is efficient; the exact cost depends on volume.

What Does PagedAttention Bring to Production?

vLLM is the first choice for serving open-source models. PagedAttention is the key technical innovation: KV-cache is managed like virtual memory in an OS, without fragmentation. This yields 2–4x higher throughput compared to naive HuggingFace Transformers inference. The vLLM documentation confirms that continuous batching and PagedAttention are the standard for high-load LLM services.

Typical numbers on A100 80GB for Llama-3 8B (bf16): 400–600 req/s, P50 latency 200–400ms, P99 latency 600–900ms at concurrency 64. For 70B on two A100 with tensor parallelism: 80–120 req/s, P99 latency 1.5–2.5s. AWQ or GPTQ quantization reduces memory consumption by 2x with quality loss within 1–3%.

Multi-Agent Systems

Agents are LLMs with access to tools: search, code execution, API calls, database interaction. Common patterns:

  • ReAct (Reason + Act): the model reasons → chooses a tool → observes the result → reasons again. LangChain and LlamaIndex implement it out of the box.
  • Multi-agent orchestration: multiple specialized agents with a coordinator on top. Example: coordinator → researcher (search + summarization) → coder (code generation and execution) → critic (verification). Tools: AutoGen (Microsoft), CrewAI, custom implementation on LangGraph.

In production, agent systems are non-deterministic. Essential: guardrails, step limits, logging of each step, human-in-the-loop for critical actions.

How We Work: Stages, Timeline, Deliverables

Stage Duration What You Get
Audit and data collection 1–2 weeks Eval dataset of 100+ examples, task formalization
Baseline (prompt + RAG) 1–2 weeks Working prototype, quality metrics
Fine-tuning (if needed) 2–4 weeks Trained model, LoRA weights, model card
Deployment and monitoring 1–2 weeks vLLM server, Grafana + Prometheus
Documentation and training 1 week API documentation, team training

What Is Included

We deliver:

  • Technical documentation (model card, configs, deployment instructions)
  • Access to infrastructure (code repository, trained weights)
  • 1 month of post-deployment support (consultations, bug fixes)
  • Customer team training (2–3 sessions on system operation)

Timeline: basic RAG prototype — 1–2 weeks. Fine-tuning with customer data — 3–6 weeks (including data preparation). Production system with monitoring and retraining — 2–4 months. Cost is calculated individually based on data volume, model complexity, and infrastructure requirements.

We guarantee the quality of the final model with performance benchmarks and ongoing monitoring. Our engineers have hands‑on experience with dozens of production LLM systems.

Want to evaluate your project? Leave a request — we will prepare a preliminary summary within 1–2 business days. Or get a consultation on choosing the approach: RAG, fine-tuning, or hybrid — we will tell you what works best for you. Contact us to discuss your LLM development needs. Schedule a free consultation today.