13 min readJust now

–

I’ve watched the same pattern repeat itself over the past few years: teams build vector search prototypes on Elasticsearch because it’s already in their stack, scale to production with millions of embeddings, then spend months fighting performance issues they didn’t anticipate. Query latencies creep up, memory usage balloons, and suddenly you’re spending more time tuning a general-purpose search engine to behave like a vector database than actually improving your application.

This is where purpose-built vector databases like Qdrant make sense. Built in Rust specifically for vector similarity search, Qdrant does one thing exceptionally well: finding similar vectors fast, with sophisticated filtering, at scale. The performance difference isn’t subtle: Qdrant’s HNSW implementation combined with quantization and payload filtering typically delivers lower latencies and better resource efficiency than Elasticsearch’s vector capabilities. And because it’s completely open source, you can run it anywhere without vendor lock-in.

Does that mean Elasticsearch is wrong for vector search? Not if your vector workload is secondary to traditional search. But if embeddings are central to what you’re building, or if you’re planning to scale significantly, the trade-offs increasingly favor specialized tools.

This guide walks you through the practical reality of migrating from Elasticsearch to Qdrant with the gotchas and 3 AM problems you may encounter.

Let’s get into it.

Why Migrate from Elasticsearch to Qdrant?

Improved performance and scalability

• Qdrant is built from the ground up as a vector‑similarity search engine (handles high‑dimensional embeddings) whereas Elasticsearch, while powerful, was originally optimized for inverted‑index full‑text search.
• Benchmarks suggest Qdrant outpaces Elasticsearch on latency and throughput for vector search workloads. For instance, one scoreboard shows Qdrant consistently achieving higher requests‑per‑second (RPS) and lower latencies.
• Qdrant supports features like efficient on‑disk storage, compression/quantization of vectors, and optimized Rust implementation for speed.
• If you anticipate growth (more embeddings, more queries, more filtering), then using a tool purpose‑built for this helps avoid hitting a “search engine stretched” scenario: e.g., long latencies, high CPU/memory consumption, increased cost.

Enhanced features and support

• Qdrant offers native vector filtering (metadata + payload + hybrid search) and supports advanced retrieval patterns. For example, it integrates with frameworks like LangChain (dense + sparse retrieval) for hybrid search.
• Qdrant natively provides live‑migration tools, so that you are moving your data from different Qdrant deployments or from other vector databases such as Elasticsearch. It’s that simple. We will see it live in the upcoming sections.
• While Elasticsearch remains feature rich for text search, aggregations, analytics, etc., if your primary requirement is vector search (semantic, embeddings, similarity) then a specialized engine may reduce cost, complexity and operational burden.

An article published by ‘theodo’ states as given in Fig. 1 below:

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Fig.1 General DB vs Dedicated Vector Database

• The ecosystem around Qdrant for AI applications is growing fast: for example platforms using it for semantic search saw latency drop from ~10 s to ~1 s.

Prerequisites for Migrating to Qdrant

The success of your migration hinges on establishing a solid foundation at both system-level and team-level before initiation. Preparing your architecture, tooling, team, and data is crucial. Skipping this preparatory step will likely result in a chaotic process marked by unexpected issues, mismatches, or performance degradation.

System Requirements:

• Qdrant Deployment: Supports local, Docker, or cloud deployment. Minimum: 4 CPU cores, 8GB RAM for production workloads.
• Storage: SSD recommended; Qdrant stores vectors on disk and loads them lazily.
• Embedding Consistency: Ensure your embedding model (e.g. OpenAI, SentenceTransformers) remains consistent before and after migration.

Apart from this, all you need is Docker and Qdrant Migration Tool.

Team Readiness for Migration

A successful migration requires clear role alignment:

• Backend Engineer: Responsible for data transformation and integrating the new API.
• DevOps: Responsible for deployment, infrastructure setup, and monitoring.
• QA/Data Analyst: Responsible for validating the quality of the search results and identifying any regressions.

Additionally, if a live cutover is planned, a clear migration window must be established, along with a comprehensive rollback plan.

Qdrant Migration Process

Let me walk you through the migration process, the real one, with all the practical considerations I wish someone had told me about upfront.

Getting Your Environment Ready

The first thing you’ll want to do is think about where you’re actually going to run the migration. I know it sounds basic, but trust me, network topology matters more than you’d think here. You need a machine or container host that has solid connectivity to both your source system and your target Qdrant instance. We’re talking about potentially moving millions of vectors, and latency adds up fast.

Qdrant distributes their official migration tool as a Docker image, which makes things pretty straightforward. The tool supports resumable, batch-based streaming transfers, meaning you won’t lose your progress if something goes sideways halfway through. Just pull the image with:

$ docker pull registry.cloud.qdrant.io/library/qdrant-migration

Here’s a tip from my experience: run this tool in the same data region as your source and target, or at least on a host with low latency to both. Those extra milliseconds per batch? They compound. What could be a 2-hour migration might stretch into 6 hours just because you chose convenience over proximity.

Mapping Your Source to Target

Now comes the configuration phase, and this is where attention to detail pays off. You’re essentially building a bridge between two systems, and both ends need to speak the same language. You’ll need to gather your source URL and credentials, your target Qdrant URL and API key, and map out which collections or indexes correspond to each other.

One thing that makes Qdrant’s approach interesting is that the tool handles streaming batches rather than requiring static snapshots. This means you can actually move data while your source system is still live and serving traffic. It’s not quite zero downtime, but it’s close.

To demonstrate, I will use a sample movie data that has five mappings: directors, genre, release_year, title, and vector as illustrated below in Fig. 2.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Fig. 2 Mappings in ElasticSearch — Kibana Dashboard

As you can see, we have four ordinary columns and one dense vector. If you’ve worked with Qdrant before, you know that the vectors are stored as points in Qdrant.But no need to worry; the migration tools take care of everything underneath. I am showing how this data looks in the Kibana view below in Fig. 3. Kibana is a user-friendly tool in the Elasticsearch environment, it is like a swiss knife. I’m attaching the Docker compose file along with this to host Kibana on your machine, just in case.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Fig. 3 Data in ElasticSearch — Kibana Dashboard

Perfect! Now let me show you what a typical configuration looks like. Say you’re migrating from Elasticsearch:

$ docker run --net=host --rm -it registry.cloud.qdrant.io/library/qdrant-migration elasticsearch \  --elasticsearch.url 'http://<your-elasticsearch-host>:9200' \  --elasticsearch.insecure-skip-verify \  --elasticsearch.index '<es_index_name>' \  --qdrant.url 'https://<your‑qdrant‑cluster>:6334' \  --qdrant.api-key 'YOUR_Q_API_KEY' \  --qdrant.collection 'q_collection_name' \  --migration.batch-size 64

This command sets up the entire mapping from your source index to a fresh collection in Qdrant. You’re also specifying the batch size here, which is worth experimenting with. Larger batches move faster but consume more memory. Smaller batches are safer but slower. I usually start with 64 and adjust based on what I see during the actual transfer. You can find the list of all available options here and as shown below in Fig. 4.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Fig. 4 List of Migration Options in Qdrant Migration Tool

Running the Transfer

Once everything’s configured, you kick off the migration and then… well, you wait. But you don’t just stare at a progress bar. The streaming batch approach means you can actually monitor what’s happening in real time, pause if needed, and resume later without starting from scratch.

During the transfer, I keep three terminal windows open. One shows the migration logs, another monitors the source system’s load, and the third watches the target Qdrant instance. You’re looking for anomalies, error spikes, unexpected latency, batches that fail and need retrying.

The most common gotcha? Mismatched vector dimensions or distance metrics between source and target. If your source uses cosine similarity and you accidentally configure Qdrant for Euclidean distance, you’re going to have a bad time. The migration will complete successfully, but your search results will be garbage. Double-check the settings before you start, not after you’ve moved 10 million vectors. Below is an illustration of how a good migration should look like, as in Fig. 5.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Fig. 5 Migration Process in Terminal

Also, keep an eye out on how long the transfer takes. If you’re migrating a representative subset and it’s taking longer than expected, do the math now. Scaling up to production volumes might mean your maintenance window isn’t long enough.

Validation: Trust, But Verify

The migration tool says it’s done. Great! But we’re not finished yet. I’ve learned the hard way that “migration complete” doesn’t always mean “migration correct.”

Start by querying your new Qdrant collection. Does the vector count match what you expected? Are the metadata payloads intact? Then run some sample searches — the same queries you’d run on your old system — and compare the results. The rankings should be similar, though not necessarily identical (different systems have different tie-breaking behaviors). Here is a sample Python script to test the semantic retrieval:

import osfrom dotenv import load_dotenvfrom openai import OpenAIfrom qdrant_client import QdrantClientload_dotenv()QDRANT_URL = os.getenv("QDRANT_URL")QDRANT_API_KEY = os.getenv("QDRANT_API_KEY")COLLECTION_NAME = os.getenv("QDRANT_COLLECTION")EMBEDDING_MODEL = "text-embedding-3-small"qdrant_client = QdrantClient(url=QDRANT_URL, api_key=QDRANT_API_KEY)openai_client = OpenAI()def search_movies(query: str, top_k: int = 5):   """Search for movies using semantic similarity"""   # Get query embedding   embedding = (       openai_client.embeddings.create(input=[query], model=EMBEDDING_MODEL)       .data[0]       .embedding   )   # Search Qdrant   response = qdrant_client.query_points(       collection_name=COLLECTION_NAME,       query=embedding,       using="vector",       limit=top_k,       with_payload=True,   )   return response.pointsif __name__ == "__main__":   query = "The Shawshank Redemption"   print(f"Searching for: '{query}'\n")   results = search_movies(query, top_k=3)   for i, result in enumerate(results, 1):       print(repr(result), end="\n\n")

If you’re using filters or hybrid queries that combine vector search with metadata filtering, test those specifically. These are often where subtle bugs hide. A query that worked perfectly in your source system might behave differently in Qdrant if the metadata types or indexing strategies differ.

This is also your chance to tune Qdrant-specific settings. Since you’re creating a new collection from scratch, you’re not constrained by your old system’s configuration. Want to try scalar quantization to save memory? Now’s the time. Thinking about adjusting shard count or replication factor? This is your window.

Run some realistic load tests, too. Throw production-level query volumes at it and watch the latencies, CPU usage, and memory consumption. It’s better to discover performance issues now than after you’ve switched all your traffic over.

Common Challenges and How to Overcome Them

Let’s be honest: not every migration ever goes perfectly. It doesn’t matter how well you’ve planned it or how many dry runs you’ve done, something may surprise you. The question isn’t whether you’ll hit challenges, but how quickly you can recognize and address them.

The Data Compatibility Puzzle

The first real test usually comes when you start looking at how your data actually translates between systems. If you’re moving from something like Elasticsearch, which happily stores arbitrarily complex nested documents, to Qdrant’s more structured payload model, you’re going to run into some friction.

I’ve seen this play out dozens of times. Someone starts the migration, and halfway through they realize that a third of their documents don’t even have the embedding field they thought was mandatory. The nested JSON structure that worked beautifully for full-text search turns into a tangled mess when you try to filter on it in Qdrant. And the vector dimensions don’t match what was documented, because someone changed the embedding model six months ago and forgot to update the config.

The fix here is unglamorous but necessary: normalize your data before you migrate. Flatten those nested structures into something Qdrant can work with. If you have metadata buried five levels deep that you need for filtering, pull it up to the top level. Run a quality check on your source data and filter out documents that don’t meet your requirements: missing vectors, wrong dimensions, corrupted embeddings, whatever. Better to catch these issues in a dry run on a 10,000-record subset than after you’ve moved 10 million vectors. A good vector after migration should look like as shown in Fig. 6.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Fig. 6 PointVector view in Qdrant Dashboard after migration

And please, validate your vector shapes. Declare your collection schema upfront with the expected dimensionality and distance metric. Avoid inserting malformed data, which will give you weird search results later.

Performance Tuning

Getting data into Qdrant is one thing. Getting it to perform well is another thing entirely. This is especially tricky if you’re coming from a traditional search engine that uses inverted indexes. The access patterns are different, the performance characteristics are different, and what worked great in your old system might feel slow in Qdrant until you tune it properly.

The most common complaint I hear post-migration: “Our queries used to take 50ms, now they’re taking 200ms.” Usually, this comes down to misconfigured collection settings. Qdrant defaults to HNSW indexing for approximate nearest neighbor search, which is fast and memory-efficient, but it has knobs you need to turn. The ef_construct, ef, and m parameters control the speed-versus-accuracy tradeoff, and the defaults aren’t always optimal for your specific use case. If you’re working with high-dimensional vectors and memory is tight, quantization becomes your best friend. Product Quantization or Scalar Quantization can dramatically reduce your memory footprint sometimes by 4x or more while keeping recall rates high enough for most applications. But you need to test it with your actual data and queries, not just trust the benchmarks. Quantization is a huge ocean of learning; I would definitely ask you to give a read here.

Filtered search deserves special attention, too. Qdrant lets you combine vector similarity with payload filters, which is powerful, but performance depends heavily on how these filters are structured and indexed. If you’re filtering on fields that aren’t indexed properly, or if your filter logic is more complex than it needs to be, you’ll see it in your latency numbers.

Here’s my advice: benchmark with real production queries, not synthetic test data. Real queries have patterns, seasonality, popular filters, and edge cases that synthetic data doesn’t capture. Tune based on what you actually observe, and don’t be afraid to iterate on your index configuration until the numbers look right.

Downtime Management

The technical challenges are manageable. The scarier question is: how do you migrate without taking down production? Nobody wants to tell their users that search will be unavailable for six hours while engineering “does some maintenance.”

The good news is that Qdrant’s streaming batch approach gives you options. You don’t need to snapshot everything, take your system offline, and do a big-bang migration. You can run the migration while your source system stays live and continues serving traffic. But this is important: your source system is probably still getting updated during the migration. New vectors are coming in, existing ones are being modified, some are being deleted. The bulk transfer captures a point in time, but time keeps moving. How do you handle that delta?

Some teams dual-write during migration: every update goes to both the old system and Qdrant simultaneously. This keeps them in sync but adds complexity to your write path. Others do a bulk migration followed by a smaller incremental sync right before cutover. Still others accept that there’s a brief window of inconsistency and so they just regenerate any missing data after the switch. Whichever approach you choose, think about it upfront. And have a rollback plan. Route traffic gradually using feature flags or a blue-green deployment strategy. Start with non-critical services or internal users. Watch the metrics obsessively. Keep your old system in read-only mode for at least a week after cutover, maybe longer if the search functionality is business-critical.

I know engineers who have been burned by prematurely decommissioning the source system. Three days after migration, they discover a subtle bug in how Qdrant handles a specific filter combination that didn’t come up in testing. Suddenly they need the old system back, and it’s already been deleted. Don’t be that engineer.

Conclusion: Ensure a Smooth Migration

Here’s the thing about migrating to Qdrant: the technical mechanics of moving vectors are actually straightforward. You spin up the Docker-based migration tool, configure your endpoints, and let it handle the batch transfers. But that’s not what this is really about. What matters is making a deliberate choice to evolve your search architecture, recognizing that forcing a general-purpose search engine to do vector-native work might be possible, but it’s not elegant and it doesn’t scale the way you need it to.

The migrations I’ve seen succeed all share common traits: teams that took validation seriously by comparing actual search results rather than just checking that vectors moved; teams that monitored aggressively during cutover and didn’t hesitate to roll back when something looked off; teams that kept their old system accessible longer than expected because weird edge cases always surface days later.

If you’re feeling constrained by Elasticsearch’s approach to vectors or if you’re starting a new embedding-first project, test Qdrant with a single non-critical collection. First, run it for a few weeks, evaluate the performance and operational overhead, and see how it feels to work with a system designed for this workload from the ground up rather than one that added vector support as an afterthought. You’ll know quickly whether the investment makes sense, and if it does, you’ll have learned the gotchas on a small scale before committing to migrate your entire search infrastructure.

The migration tool handles moving the data; everything else — the planning, validation, tuning, and careful cutover — that’s on you. But that’s also where the actual value lives.

References:

I write blogs on FastAPI, LLMs, RAG, LangChain, Backend every week, if you find it valuable please clap and share with your friends who might need it.

‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎Thanks for reading!