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
