Brent Wood wrote: >>>> aravind chandu <avin_friends@xxxxxxxxx> 07/08/08 10:30 AM >>> > Hello, > > I need to store > an image in postgresql database and after that i need to retrive the > image back.Can you please help me how to do this? > > > > Hi, > > I have been involved in building a few applications to manage this capability. In the 3 cases to date, we store the info about the image in the database, including the name/path/URL to the image, and have an application retrieve the image for us from this data. We have not (yet) found any added value in storing the image itself as a binary object in the database. Images are stored as files on the system. Some of the advantages to doing it in the database are: - The image data is manipulated in the same transaction as the metadata in the DB, so they don't get out of sync; and - By using the DB you can have a single authentication and remote access setup. You don't also need WebDAV or whatever to access and alter the image data. - ... and probably much more. However: - Storing image data in the DB is probably much less efficient in storage space and for access; and - You face possible MVCC bloat with image data when storing in the DB, so careful management would be needed - ... and probably much more. The first really cool MS-SQL feature I've heard about relates to this. NTFS now has transaction support. I'm pretty sure I remember hearing about MS SQL server integration for filesystem/database transactions where database transactions can encompass alterations to files in the filesystem as well. I don't use MS SQL server so I haven't tested those features out. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163388.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa363764(VS.85).aspx If it works as well as one might hope then it'd be a great half-way point between these two choices. Well, except for the need to use MS-SQL ;-) -- Craig Ringer
