There has got to be some sort of standard way to do this. We have the
same problem where I work. Terabytes of images, but the question is
still sort of around "BLOBs or Files?" Our final decision was to use the
file system. We found that you didn't really gain anything by storing
the images in the DB, other than having one place to get the data from.
The file system approach is much easier to backup, because each image
can be archived separately as well as browsed by 3rd party tools.
-jj-
On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 07:40, Cott Lang wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 01:44, Michal Hlavac wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am working on web portal. There are some ads. We have about 200 000
> > ads. Every ad have own directory called ID, where is 5 subdirectories
> > with various sizes of 5 images.
> >
> > Filesystem is too slow. But I don't know, if I store these images into
> > postgres, performace will grow.
>
>
> Consider breaking your directories up, i.e.:
>
> /ads/(ID % 1000)/ID
>
> I use that for a system with several million images, works great. I
> really don't think putting them in the database will do anything
> positive for you. :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
--
Jeremiah Jahn <jeremiah@cs.earlham.edu>
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
