ind-completion vs cocompletion of a category, i.e Ind(C) vs Psh(C) Let $C$ be any category. $Ind(C)$ is the category universal for filtered-colimit-preserving maps from $C$ to any inductive category (i.e categories having all filtered colimits), while the presheaf category $Psh(C):=Fun(C^{op}, Sets)$ is universal for colimit preserving maps from $C$ to a co-complete categories (i.e has all colimits). What are some examples where $Ind(C)$ and $Psh(C)$ are different? 
I'm reading Lurie's Higher Topos theory, and where he talks about taking $C$ be the category of finitely generated abelian groups, and claims $Ind(C)$ equivalent to the category $Ab$ of all abelian groups. I think the reason is as follows: Given an abelian group $A$, we can consider the diagram of all finitely generated subgroups of $A$, with the maps being the inclusions map $A_i \to A_j$ if $A_i \subseteq A_j$. Then this is an $\omega$-filtered colimit, since any finite number of finitely generated subgroups has their union as an upper bound, and the union is also finitely generated. And $A\simeq colim_D \ A_i$. What is $Psh(C)$ in this case, and is it different from $Ab$?
 A: These almost never agree, in the sense that there's a natural functor $\text{Ind}(C) \to \text{Psh}(C)$ and it is almost never an equivalence. If $C$ is essentally small and has finite colimits, then $\text{Ind}(C)$ can be identified with the full subcategory of $\text{Psh}(C)$ on presheaves $F : C^{op} \to \text{Set}$ which send finite colimits to finite limits. An arbitrary presheaf just won't have this property. For example, if $C$ is the category of finitely generated abelian groups, the presheaf $\text{Hom}(-, \mathbb{Z}) \sqcup \text{Hom}(-, \mathbb{Z})$ does not have this property. 
A: This should be a comment about possible notation confusion, but I don't have enough reputation for it.
If $C$ is a pre-triangulated small $k$-linear dg category (admitting finite limit and colimit), and Vect is the dg (derived) category of chain complexes over a field $k$, people sometimes write $Mod(C) = Fun_{ex}(C^{op}, Vect)$ as the dg category of exact functors. If we define Ind(C) as the ind-completion of the Yoneda image of $C$ in $Mod(C)$, then $Ind(C)=Mod(C)$, since $Ind(C)$ is closed under finite colimit and filtered colimit, hence is closed under all (small) colimit.
The possible confusion is that sometimes people write $Psh(C)$ as $Mod(C)$, and one need to watch for whether the functor category is valued in Set or Vect, and whether it is about exact functor or all functors.
(Note: the objects are not just the naive exact functors. For example, one can view dg cat as $A_\infty$ cat, then $A_\infty$ functors between two $A_\infty$ categories forms a $A_\infty$ category, and if the target category is dg, then the functor category is dg. (see Seidel's book on Fukaya category and Lefschetz fibration.) But I don't know how to unpackage / simplify this to the dg setting.)
