Re: Database versus filesystem for storing images

From: Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)killerbytes(dot)com>
To: Clodoaldo <clodoaldo(dot)pinto(dot)neto(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Database versus filesystem for storing images
Date: 2007-01-03 15:42:53
Message-ID: C1C11D0D.5EDAC%scott_ribe@killerbytes.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Personally, I'd put them on the file system, because then backup software
can perform incremental backups. In the database, that becomes more of a
difficulty. One suggestion, don't use a file name from a hash to store the
image, just use the serial id, and break them up by hundreds or thousands,
iow image 1123 might be in images/000/000001/000001123.

--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe(at)killerbytes(dot)com
http://www.killerbytes.com/
(303) 722-0567 voice

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message hubert depesz lubaczewski 2007-01-03 15:51:53 Re: "no unpinned buffers available" ? why? (hstore and plperl involved)
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2007-01-03 15:34:26 Re: queueing via database table?