From: | Kris Jurka <jurka(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Marc Herbert <Marc(dot)Herbert(at)continuent(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: large objects are "deprecated" ? |
Date: | 2005-12-16 19:15:51 |
Message-ID: | 43A31267.8050303@ejurka.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Marc Herbert wrote:
> Hi Kris,
Please send JDBC questions to the pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org mailing
list, not any individual developers.
> doc/pgjdbc.xml, written by Peter Eisentraut. Concerning Large
> Objects, this document claims:
>
> PostgreSQL provides two distinct ways to store binary data. [in the
> table, or outside the table] In order to determine which method is
> appropriate you need to understand the limitations of each method....
>
> Peter himself says the opposite, at least that's what I understood from:
>
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.postgresql.odbc/4971
Large objects are not deprecated. As the documentation claims there are
advantages and drawbacks to using each datatype. The decision of which
to use really revolves around how much data you intend to store.
Kris Jurka
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Moses | 2005-12-17 05:35:06 | Re: setting & using connection pool in beans for tomcat. |
Previous Message | Jan de Visser | 2005-12-16 14:03:29 | Re: JDBC-ODBC Bridge usage |