| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jean-Yves F(dot) Barbier" <12ukwn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BYTEA or LO? |
| Date: | 2011-05-31 19:21:17 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTik-LMG33pxNg-9x1_w4h5p5m+qb5Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Jean-Yves F. Barbier <12ukwn(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 13:40:02 -0500, "ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> wrote:
>
> ...
>> That is needed to use the non-binary API. You can also use hex encoding
>> starting with 9.0, I think. The data is stored in binary internally so you
>> should not get a 33% bump in size. If you use the binary API, you can avoid
>> the hex/base64 encoding pass as well.
>
> I just read the doc but didn't fully understand the binary part.
>
> Do you mean that with BYTEA binary type I can directly R/W my pictures
> without any transcoding trick?
If you are using libpq or another driver that exports this feature of
the protocol, yes.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jean-Yves F. Barbier | 2011-05-31 19:53:04 | Re: BYTEA or LO? |
| Previous Message | Jean-Yves F. Barbier | 2011-05-31 19:01:26 | Re: BYTEA or LO? |