Re: Storing Video's or vedio file in DB.

This! I'm surprised it took so long to somebody suggest an object store.
On Dec 17, 2014 9:22 PM, "Jonathan Vanasco" <postgres(at)2xlp(dot)com> wrote:

>
> I wouldn't even store it on the filesystem if I could avoid that.
> Most people I know will assign the video a unique identifier (which is
> stored in the database) and then store the video file with a 3rd party
> (e.g. Amazon S3).
>
> 1. This is often cheaper. Videos take up a lot of disk space. Having to
> ensure 2-3 copies of a file as a failover is not fun.
> 2. It offloads work from internal servers. Why deal with connections that
> are serving a static file if you can avoid it?
>
> In terms of FS vs DB (aside from the open vs streaming which was already
> brought up)
>
> I think the big issue with storing large files in the database is the
> input/output connection.
> Postgres has a specified number of max connections available, and each one
> has some overhead to operate. Meanwhile, a server like nginx can handle 10k
> connections easily, and with little or no overhead. While the speed is
> comparable to the OS, you end up using a resource from a limited database
> connection pool. And you run the risk of a slow/dropped client tying up
> the connection.
> Why allocate a resource to these operations, when there are more
> lightweight alternatives that won't tie up a database connection ?
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>