Message-ID: <009e01be4d6e$3b0cf9c0$8d0835d1@bconnected.net>
From: "Gregory W Burnham" <greg_burnham@bc.sympatico.ca>
To: <pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Large objects, why not use the filesystem?
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:05:41 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Haberlach <haberlaa@ricochet.net>
To: Matthew Hagerty <matthew@wolfepub.com>;
<pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 1999 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Large objects, why not use the filesystem?


>On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 03:26:15PM -0500, Matthew Hagerty wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I always see posts of people trying to get their large binary and text
>> objects into and out of the database somehow.  I was wondering if there
is
>> some reason why just storing a filename in the table would be a bad
thing?
>> This way you can let the file system worry about storing the data (since
>> that is what the file system is good at.)  I understand that you probably
>> could not access the data via ODBC, but if you are writing your frontend
in
>> C or Perl, etc. then you would simply use the filename stored in the
table
>> to access the data.
>
> Because the database is in a different room then the client.

Right.  That would be a place where you couldn't use Matthew's
suggestion.  But in my case my 'client' is, ultimately, a cgi.
And now I'm wondering, why am I not using files?  I would hope
that postgres would be providing me with some kind of superior
performance than the file system.  Infact, I've always assumed
it.  But was I right to assume that?  Are there benchmarks out
there?

Gregory W Burnham
Software Engineer
Excite Labs
Faculty Of Education
Simon Fraser University
Vancouver, BC, V5A 1S6
604 291 3615 (ph)
604 291 5679 (fx)