From: | "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | "alex b(dot)" <mailinglists1(at)gmx(dot)de>, Postgresql General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: images in database |
Date: | 2003-04-03 12:08:53 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0304031303250.2573-100000@ponder.fairway2k.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jan Wieck wrote:
> "alex b." wrote:
> >
> > well, as many of you might have noticed, I am new to sql... :>
> >
> > I know of the possibility in mysql to store images or other files in the
> > database.
> >
> > so: is there a similar thing with pgsql?
> > if so, then how do you realize this?
>
> I never get why people are so eager to use knowingly proprietary
> features. Aren't all the other differences in SQL dialects enough to
> make porting hard?
>
> What about B64 encoding and storing as strings?
Well depends on what people want. I mentioned Base64 encoding and storing
numerous times on a current project and mostly was met with blank stares, no
comment or the same questions I'd answered several times before.
In the end, we went with large objects because my tests showed them faster than
bytea and there could be large sized objects, a B64 encoding would bloat the
size (encode/decode time and size bloat were what slowed the bytea down I
think) and the large objects let us extract the file in portions for streaming
should we wish.
B64 would still require a bytea storage type to avoid any character encoding
issue between client and server though, right?
--
Nigel J. Andrews
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-04-03 12:30:00 | Re: images in database |
Previous Message | Phil Howard | 2003-04-03 12:01:36 | Re: anyone know what the deal with 64.117.224.149 is? |