Re: Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)

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