Re: Database versus filesystem for storing images

Scott Ribe wrote:
> Personally, I'd put them on the file system, because then backup software
> can perform incremental backups. In the database, that becomes more of a
> difficulty. One suggestion, don't use a file name from a hash to store the
> image, just use the serial id, and break them up by hundreds or thousands,
> iow image 1123 might be in images/000/000001/000001123.
>
> --
> Scott Ribe
> scott_ribe(at)killerbytes(dot)com
> http://www.killerbytes.com/
> (303) 722-0567 voice

I think I know the answer, but if you don't have an "application
server" - ie a webserver, etc, and many of the workstations/clients
that need access to the images but may not have access to a network
share, isn't the database the only choice ?

- or is there a postgresql function/utility that will "server" the
file from the file system based on the reference/link embeded in the
database ??

Geoff.