Re: Caching and Blobs in PG? Was: Can PG replace redis, amqp, s3 in the future?

On 5/5/2017 11:28 AM, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> On 2017-05-04 23:08:25 +0200, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
>> On 03.05.2017 12:57, Thomas Güttler wrote:
>>> Am 02.05.2017 um 05:43 schrieb Jeff Janes:
>>>> No. You can certainly use PostgreSQL to store blobs. But then, you
>>>> need to store the PostgreSQL data **someplace**.
>>>> If you don't store it in S3, you have to store it somewhere else.
>>> I don't understand what you mean here. AFAIK storing blobs in PG is not
>>> recommended since it is not very efficient.
>> Seems like several people here disagree with this conventional wisdom.
> I think it depends very much on what level of "efficiency" you need. On
> my home server (i5 processor, 32GB RAM, Samsung 850 SSD - not a piece of
> junk, but not super powerful either) I can retrieve a small blob from a
> 100GB table in about 0.1 ms, and for large blobs the speed approaches
> 200MB/s. For just about everything I'd do on that server (or even at
> work) this is easily fast enough.

S3 is often used for terabyte to petabyte file collections. I would
not want to burden my relational database with this.

--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz