Re: Video storage in Postgres?

AFAIK they still use a mix of Oracle and MySQL, though now that they are a
part of google, they might be switching to something more bigtable oriented.

Robert Treat

On Friday 17 August 2007 11:55, Bob Zurek wrote:
> My understanding is that YouTube is using MySQL is that correct?
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-advocacy-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Robert Treat
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:20 AM
> To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Cc: Lukas Kahwe Smith; JoshuaKramer
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Video storage in Postgres?
>
> On Friday 17 August 2007 01:58, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> > JoshuaKramer wrote:
> > > In all seriousness, what advantages accrue by serving video from the
>
> DB?
>
> > Well all the advantages people associate with LOBs:
> > - single place for all data
> > * for backups
> > * for replication
> > * for ACLs
> >
> > I often just care about the first two, in which case I simply employ a
> > mod_rewrite rule, that points to the on disc version of the file and
> > fals back to serving directly from the database (but also dump a file
>
> to
>
> > the proper location on disc).
>
> Don't forget about ACID garauntees. When inserting video into a db, you
> have
> the garauntee that if something goes wrong the meta-data rolls back and
> your
> in a complete state. When keeping video on the fs, if an error occures
> when
> writing the file, you have to have some application code to ensure that
> everything in the db cleans up appropriatly. This is not impossible, but
>
> letting the db do it for you is certainly easier.
>
> That said, most video sites end up employing some type of cacheing
> system to
> get video's sent around (think akami), so it becomes moot to force
> everything
> into the db, since they aren't going to serve all that video from the db
>
> anyway.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL