| From: | David Saracini <dsaracini(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | newbie question: bytea v. large objects |
| Date: | 2009-04-15 01:58:06 |
| Message-ID: | 791265.5432.qm@web82904.mail.mud.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
Hello all,
I've been doing a little bit of reading on the difference between large objects and bytea. Bytea feels a little bit more like what I'm use to with Oracle, MSSQL, etc. However, I'm leaning towards using large objects, but one thing in the documentation is bothering me:
>From documentation:
( http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/interactive/lo-intro.html )
"PostgreSQL also supports a storage system called "TOAST" that automatically stores values larger than a single database page into a secondary storage area per table. This makes the large object facility partially obsolete."
I think it's the word "obsolete" that is bothering me :)
Does anyone know if I should consider large objects to be depreciated, and if there are plans for them to someday go away?
Any other advice on the subject or links to reading I should do will be much appreciated.
Thanks,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jasen Betts | 2009-04-19 11:08:47 | Re: Time-based trigger/procedure |
| Previous Message | Just E. Mail | 2009-04-14 12:04:08 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.3.7 Clint to Server Connection Problem! |