On 12/17/2014 07:37 PM, Arthur Silva wrote:
This! I'm surprised it took so long to somebody suggest an object store.
I thought they did, a file system:)
On Dec 17, 2014 9:22 PM, "Jonathan Vanasco" <postgres@xxxxxxxx <mailto:postgres@xxxxxxxx>> wrote: I wouldn't even store it on the filesystem if I could avoid that. Most people I know will assign the video a unique identifier (which is stored in the database) and then store the video file with a 3rd party (e.g. Amazon S3). 1. This is often cheaper. Videos take up a lot of disk space. Having to ensure 2-3 copies of a file as a failover is not fun. 2. It offloads work from internal servers. Why deal with connections that are serving a static file if you can avoid it? In terms of FS vs DB (aside from the open vs streaming which was already brought up) I think the big issue with storing large files in the database is the input/output connection. Postgres has a specified number of max connections available, and each one has some overhead to operate. Meanwhile, a server like nginx can handle 10k connections easily, and with little or no overhead. While the speed is comparable to the OS, you end up using a resource from a limited database connection pool. And you run the risk of a slow/dropped client tying up the connection. Why allocate a resource to these operations, when there are more lightweight alternatives that won't tie up a database connection ? --
-- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
