From: | Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Guy Rouillier" <guyr(at)masergy(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Image storage questions |
Date: | 2005-05-19 23:45:13 |
Message-ID: | m2d5rmrd9y.fsf@Douglas-McNaughts-Powerbook.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Guy Rouillier" <guyr(at)masergy(dot)com> writes:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> External storing is useful but I prefer LO because all my data (binary
>> and meta) is all in the same place for management.
>
> But if that's a big L in LO, performance and maintenance will be
> negatively affected, perhaps significantly. The DBMS will have to scan
> over all that large binary data to extract text or numeric data. And
> backups will copy that static binary data repeatedly. For those
> reasons, if I'm storing very large objects, like images, that I know
> I'll never search or update, I prefer to manage them externally.
Large objects (and reasonably large text/bytea columns as well) are
stored out-of-line, so normal table scans don't have to read them
unnecessarily.
-Doug
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | CSN | 2005-05-20 01:59:35 | Locale C? |
Previous Message | Guy Rouillier | 2005-05-19 23:21:13 | Re: Image storage questions |