On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Esmin Gracic <esmin.gracic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > another option is using sqlite for storing images. All data is in single > file. (or files if you organize it that way) easier backup etc... you have > some db benefits and retaining solid speed vs file system. Haven't used > this, but seems as viable option to explore. My postgres database is stored on a single file as well...on my workstation it's /dev/sda2. Using a loopback device I could create a classic file. Point being, having a single file doesn't eliminate or simplify fragmentation and sync issues -- it just moves them from one place to another. sqlite has fundamentally different operational characteristics due to it's architecture. It is unsuited for problems where a multi-user database is typically the tool of choice for a number of reasons. For example, sqlite's locking model is exceptionally crude by comparison, and intentionally so. Being able to run inside an applications's process is a huge asset though. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
