Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: not really SQL but I need info on BLOBs

From: "Andrei Bintintan" <klodoma(at)ar-sd(dot)net>
To: "Theodore Petrosky" <tedpet5(at)yahoo(dot)com>,<pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: not really SQL but I need info on BLOBs
Date: 2004-05-06 05:27:20
Message-ID: 004401c4332a$cee69f00$0b00a8c0@forge (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql
I suggest to store the images on the disc and write in the db only the path.
I am using the same solution. The only problem is that I have to make the
backups separately(in my case). Also this helps more in accessing the
images, you don't have to access for each image the database, you just have
to get the file path.

Think also at the dump size of the database (with blobs). (if you have 100GB
of photos..the dump will be also that big)

I never tied to put the database on 2 disks, I read somewhere that is
possible but I never tried it. In my situation I don't need this, because
the size of the DB is not quite that big. But for the photos we will use
more discs (we are not using 2 yet) and there is no difference in this case
how many discs you use, because in the DB you store only the path.

I see it this way more simple, maybe other have other opinions.

Best regards,
Andy.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Theodore Petrosky" <tedpet5(at)yahoo(dot)com>
To: <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 6:10 PM
Subject: [SQL] not really SQL but I need info on BLOBs


> Hi,
>
> I am starting a new project where I need to store a
> lot of tiff images. So the question beckons... which
> is better (not correct)?
> store a blob in the database and let the db manage the
> data or
> store the image in a directory and store the path to
> the data in the db.
>
> What are your opinions? Is one method better than the
> other or are there simply different trade offs?
>
> If I store the tiff on the computer and only store the
> path in the database it would be easier to add more
> disk space to the computer without any changes to the
> db. Also, there would be 'virtually' unlimited storage
> space (only limited by the OS)
>
> However, it looks like it would be easier to create a
> connection to the database to access the blobs.
>
> I would love to hear not just what others have done
> but why they did it?
>
> Thanks for listening...
>
> BTW, I really like the zeroconf (rendezvous) support
> in postgresql.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
>



In response to

Responses

pgsql-sql by date

Next:From: Francesc LevequeDate: 2004-05-06 08:52:04
Subject: Subselect returning 2 columns
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-05-05 19:46:07
Subject: Re: Procedure failing after upgrade

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group