From: | <pgsql-general(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael <mwaples(at)waples(dot)net>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Databases compared at zend.com |
Date: | 2001-06-01 18:04:23 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0106011103100.1356-100000@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> Good article. The only inaccuracy I saw was that he claims Postgres'
> storage of large objects is "in the filesystem" and "inefficient".
> >From my reading of the docs this is not true--large objects are stored
> within the database just as with any other data. The programming
> interface to LOs may or may not be clunkier than that of other
> databases, but the storage is no less efficient.
As the person who wrote it :) It was my understanding that PostgreSQL
stores large objects on the filesystem outside of the database tables.
They may be indexed but I thought there was only an identifier within the
table that pointed to the large object.
If this is not true, could someone please describe the actual process, I
can update the article.
Joshua Drake
>
> I thought about posting a comment on the article, but I didn't feel
> like registering at Yet Another Website in order to do so.
>
> -Doug
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-06-01 18:14:40 | Re: Can't restart postmaster! |
Previous Message | pgsql-general | 2001-06-01 18:02:49 | Re: Databases compared at zend.com |