Search Postgresql Archives

Re: Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 05:08:27PM -0600, Leonel Nunez wrote:
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)
> User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8
> 
> > Leonel Nunez wrote:
> >>> I think the arguments for keeping stuff inside the database are
> >>> (a) far easier to maintain transactional semantics for insert/delete,
> >>> and (b) easier to serve the data out to clients that aren't on the
> >>> same machine.  You aren't going to find a performance win though.
> >>>
> >>
> >>  (c) easy to replicate
> >
> > I don't follow that.  Suppose your database minus images is 3 GB, and
> > your images are another 50 gigabytes.  Which is easier to replicate, 3
> > or 53?  Put the images on a file server, separate from the DBs - no need
> > to replicate them.
> 
> yes 3GB are  *faster*  han 53 gb  but is the same as easy as 3 or 100
And, the above only applies to *initial* costs of replication.

Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Postgresql Jobs]     [Postgresql Admin]     [Postgresql Performance]     [Linux Clusters]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Postgresql & PHP]     [Yosemite]
  Powered by Linux