Is there any overwhelming reason you can't just stick an apache server
on your DB server? Unless you expect this thing to get hit *hard*, the
performance of having them both on the same machine is pretty acceptable
(I know, everyone's opinion about what constitutes heavy usage
differs). If this is a simple intranet application with around 100
users, the performance should be OK.
If I had to write a client-side app to pull images off of a server, I'd
much rather code HTTP GETs into my app than deal with binary data from
the database. I've done both, and HTTP GETs are much easier. Bear in
mind I haven't pulled binaries from a database in about 5 years, so
things might be easier now.
imageguy wrote:
Clodoaldo wrote:
5 Jan 2007 06:59:18 -0800, imageguy <imageguy1206@xxxxxxxxx>:
I think I know the answer,
If you know the answer please tell it as I have read some discussions
on the web and although I have decided on a solution I'm still not
sure about the best answer, if there is a best answer after all.
Sorry, didn't mean to sound like and expert on this, I am actually
quite a newbie. From all of the discussions I have read and even the
ones in this thread, including your own comments below, it would seem
that to store the files in the files system you need some sort of
application erver or :middleware - like a webserver - to handle the
retreiving and serving of the files.
My organization is developing a commercial application for "document
tracking". It is not a Browser application, but rather a more
traditional "windows" thick client app.
At the present time we do not intend to deploy any sort of "application
server" - web server, ftp server, and not all of the workstations will
have access to a consistent network share.
So in this case, it is my understanding that our only real choice is to
store the documents and images in the database itself.
... unless someone knows of a postgresql function that would allow us
to "server" the file from the filesystem via the dbserver ??
but if you don't have an "application
server" - ie a webserver, etc,
Yes I have an application server, the Apache server.
and many of the workstations/clients
that need access to the images but may not have access to a network
share,
network share? I don't understand. The images will be loaded by html
pages with the img tag like in <img
src="http://domain.com/images/xxx.jpg";>
isn't the database the only choice ?
No. It is one of the choices. The other is to store the images in the
file system, in a directory readable by Apache.
See above. WE are trying to reduce the dependancies on other
applications to ensure a simple deployment of the application.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org/
![http://domain.com/images/xxx.jpg"](http://domain.com/images/xxx.jpg"){kind=link}