From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Guy Rouillier <guyr(at)masergy(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Image storage questions |
Date: | 2005-05-20 03:31:27 |
Message-ID: | 428D5A0F.3080406@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Guy Rouillier wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>
>>External storing is useful but I prefer LO because all my data (binary
>>and meta) is all in the same place for management.
>
>
> But if that's a big L in LO, performance and maintenance will be
> negatively affected, perhaps significantly.
How?
The DBMS will have to scan
> over all that large binary data to extract text or numeric data.
Ahhh now I see, are you expecting to be able to query your LOs? We only
use Large Objects as a storage mechanism.
And
> backups will copy that static binary data repeatedly.
Not unless you tell it to. If you don't pass the -b option you are not
going to end up backing up your large objects anyway.
For those
> reasons, if I'm storing very large objects, like images, that I know
> I'll never search or update, I prefer to manage them externally.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | OpenMacNews | 2005-05-20 03:42:35 | Re: 8.0.3 build error on Mac OS X 10.4 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-20 03:27:18 | Inherited constraints and search paths (was Re: Preserving data after updates) |