| From: | Alessio Bragadini <alessio(at)albourne(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Large Objects |
| Date: | 2000-09-21 12:20:39 |
| Message-ID: | 39C9FD17.FB75896A@albourne.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Neil Conway wrote:
> > a BLOB. Conversely, Unix filesystems store directories as unsorted
> > lists, which are a lot slower to search than the database's
> > structured indexes.
> Wow, can anyone confirm this (with Postgres preferrably)? In talking
> with some developers at my old job, they all agreed that storing large
> pieces of data (1k < x < 16K) was significantly faster on the FS than
I believe he's talking about storing all files in the same directory,
which is simply The Wrong Way for a number of reasons. While saving a
large number of external files, we use a sub-dir structure in the form
/data/f4/d3/12/myfile.bin in order to spread the number of files in a
tree pseudorandomly. This is the same approach used by the Squid
webcache.
--
Alessio F. Bragadini alessio(at)albourne(dot)com
APL Financial Services http://village.albourne.com
Nicosia, Cyprus phone: +357-2-755750
"It is more complicated than you think"
-- The Eighth Networking Truth from RFC 1925
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adam Lang | 2000-09-21 12:52:53 | replication |
| Previous Message | Danny | 2000-09-21 11:42:16 | data type (datetime) |