From: | Estevan Rech <softrech(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Best Strategy for Large Number of Images |
Date: | 2021-12-15 20:12:10 |
Message-ID: | CAJZXSXjYkdQbbG8Q=LCy29zmCfyfKjJO17djoV4fqbiSmQ7qeQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Adrian,
I have an application that takes pictures of items and uses them as
evidence in a report.
These images are saved and then used to generate a report.
Each item averages 10 photos and I have about 2 million photos currently,
with an average growth of 1 million photos over the next year.
I think about using it within the database because of the ease of selecting
records with the content of the images (when necessary).
I think my biggest concern is to continue to use this strategy for the next
2 years and encounter a PostgreSQL limitation or some failure and have to
migrate database again or have significant loss of images. And on the
contrary too, if I use it on disk and in 2 years I find some failure or
file limit in the operating system (currently it's windows server 2016)...
Related to this is the backup service that seems to me that in a disaster,
I can restore the database relatively quickly if it's in the database. On
the disk, I believe that the restoration is much slower and I don't think
it's reliable that all the images are copied/restored.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bryn Llewellyn | 2021-12-15 21:05:42 | Re: Why can't I have a "language sql" anonymous block? |
Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2021-12-15 19:37:19 | Re: Best Strategy for Large Number of Images |