Thanks, until Postgres can pay my bills (hopefully soon...) I will
have to be an Oracle guy. Aside from the filesystem being better at
managing large files (which I do agree) are there performance
implications for the storage in the DB?
Where I work, the question is not can you add the security code to
the middleware, but how many middlewares and applications will need to
be updated.
Regards,
Nate
Craig A. James wrote:
Nate Byrnes wrote:
I must claim some ignorance, I come from the application world...
but, from a data integrity perspective, it makes a whole lot of sense
to store video, images, documents, whatever in the database rather
than on the file system external to it. Personally, I would use
LOB's, but I do not know the internals well enough to say LOBs or
large columns. Regardless, there are a lot of compelling reasons
ranging from software maintenance, disk management, data access
control, single security layer implementation, and so on which
justify storing data like this in the DB. Am I too much of an
Oracle guy?
Yes, you are too much of an Oracle guy ;-). Oracle got this notion
that they could conquer the world, that EVERYTHING should be in an
Oracle database. I think they even built a SAMBA file system on top
of Oracle. It's like a hammer manufacturer telling you the hammer is
also good for screws and for gluing. It just ain't so.
You can store videos in a database, but there will be a price. You're
asking the database to do something that the file system is already
exceptionally good at: store big files.
You make one good point about security: A database can provide a
single point of access control. Storing the videos externally
requires a second mechanism. That's not necessarily bad -- you
probably have a middleware layer, which can ensure that it won't
deliver the goods unless the user has successfully connected to the
database.
Craig
!DSPAM:43eb5e8970644042098162!
