Re: Storing Video's or vedio file in DB.

From: Jonathan Vanasco <postgres(at)2xlp(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Storing Video's or vedio file in DB.
Date: 2014-12-17 23:20:50
Message-ID: 4683D2AC-7C10-4A5C-95D9-AF2BA8FE4265@2xlp.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general


I wouldn't even store it on the filesystem if I could avoid that.
Most people I know will assign the video a unique identifier (which is stored in the database) and then store the video file with a 3rd party (e.g. Amazon S3).

1. This is often cheaper. Videos take up a lot of disk space. Having to ensure 2-3 copies of a file as a failover is not fun.
2. It offloads work from internal servers. Why deal with connections that are serving a static file if you can avoid it?

In terms of FS vs DB (aside from the open vs streaming which was already brought up)

I think the big issue with storing large files in the database is the input/output connection.
Postgres has a specified number of max connections available, and each one has some overhead to operate. Meanwhile, a server like nginx can handle 10k connections easily, and with little or no overhead. While the speed is comparable to the OS, you end up using a resource from a limited database connection pool. And you run the risk of a slow/dropped client tying up the connection.
Why allocate a resource to these operations, when there are more lightweight alternatives that won't tie up a database connection ?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Patrick Krecker 2014-12-17 23:29:02 Re: Re: Strange error message when reference non-existent column foo."count"
Previous Message David G Johnston 2014-12-17 23:11:49 Re: Strange error message when reference non-existent column foo."count"