Received: from mail1.bctel.ca (mail1.bctel.ca [207.194.28.67]) by hub.org (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA86396 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 07:14:17 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from gburnham@sfu.ca) Received: from lucie (a3a13627.sympatico.bconnected.net [209.53.8.141]) by mail1.bctel.ca with SMTP id EAA18570; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 04:14:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00cc01be4dda$9660fb20$8d0835d1@bconnected.net> Reply-To: "Gregory W Burnham" From: "Gregory W Burnham" To: , "Gene Selkov Jr." Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Large objects, why not use the filesystem? Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 04:01:21 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800 >> 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? > >No benchmarks are needed. Large objects are stored one per file, >therefore you will see the same preformance. Ok, I've seen all the xinv* files, I understand that. But what if the benefit of using large objects over files? If there isn't superior performance then why do it? 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)