Re: Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)

> 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 if you do want to copy (e.g., your replicated DB
> is in a remote location), you can do a simple file system copy to the
> corresponding remote file server.

this is done with automatic replication as the data is inserted,
deleted or updated.

When I say data I mean records , images, pdfs and all the objects I use

>
>> (d) easy to load balancing
>
> If you're load balancing, both databases are in the same location,
> right? In which case you only need one set of images on a central file
> server.
>

the bigger data are the images so 1 set of images is not a real
solution for me.

with all the data stored on the database gives me more scalability,
consistency, flexibility than putting the "files" on the disk and
"data" on the database

> --
> Guy Rouillier
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>

Leonel