Some time ago I had to setup a replicated file system between multiple linux servers. I tried everything I could based on postgres, including large objects, but everything was significantly slower than a regular filesystem.
My conclussion: postgres is not suitable for storing large files efficiently.
Do you need that for replication, or just for file storage?
Alvaro Aguayo
Jefe de Operaciones
Open Comb Systems E.I.R.L.
Oficina: (+51-1) 3377813 | RPM: #034252 / (+51) 995540103 | RPC: (+51) 954183248
Website: www.ocs.pe
Sent from my Sony Xperia™ smartphone
---- Sridhar N Bamandlapally wrote ----
all media files are stored in database with size varies from 1MB - 5GB
based on media file types and user-group we storing in different tables, but PostgreSQL store OID/Large-object in single table (pg_largeobject), 90% of database size is with table pg_largeobject
due to size limitation BYTEA was not considered
Thanks
Sridhar
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:05 PM, John R Pierce <pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3/29/2016 2:13 AM, Sridhar N Bamandlapally wrote:
Hi
pg_largeobject is creating performance issues as it grow due to single point storage(for all tables)
is there any alternate apart from bytea ?
like configuration large-object-table at table-column level and oid PK(primary key) stored at pg_largeobject
I would as soon use a NFS file store for larger files like images, audio, videos, or whatever. use SQL for the relational metadata.
just sayin'....
--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
