From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Donato Marrazzo <donato(dot)marrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: How to get more than 2^32 BLOBs |
Date: | 2020-04-08 12:04:59 |
Message-ID: | 50a88c5152f9dee204f1c10a95dd90651585efcb.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 12:12 +0200, Donato Marrazzo wrote:
>
> Il giorno mer 8 apr 2020 alle ore 12:06 Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> ha scritto:
> > On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 11:15 +0200, Donato Marrazzo wrote:
> > > according this page [1], large object are limited to the OID range of 2^32 (since it's a 4 bytes number).
> > > I'm working on a use case were there are many tables with blobs (on average not so large 32KB).
> > > I foresee that in 2-3 years time frame, the limit of overall blobs will be breached: more than 2^32 blobs.
> > >
> > > - Is there a way to change the OID limit?
> > > - Should we switch to a bytea implementation?
> > > - Are there any drawback of bytea except the maximum space?
> >
> > Don't use large objects. They are only useful if
> > 1) you have files larger than 1GB or
> > 2) you need to stream writes
> >
> > There are no such limitations if you use the "bytea" data type, and it is
> > much simpler to handle at the same time.
>
> Are you aware of any performance drawback?
No; in fact, "bytea" performs better.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Donato Marrazzo | 2020-04-08 13:14:24 | Re: How to get more than 2^32 BLOBs |
Previous Message | Christophe Courtois | 2020-04-08 11:41:26 | Re: How to get more than 2^32 BLOBs |