Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.35])
	by hub.org (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA55638
	for <pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org>;
	Mon, 1 Feb 1999 02:22:33 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from selkovjr@mcs.anl.gov)
Received: from mcs.anl.gov (selkovjr@selkovjr.xnet.com [205.243.141.67]) by
	mail.xnet.com (8.8.6/XNet-3.0R) with ESMTP id BAA13407;
	Mon, 1 Feb 1999 01:23:11 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199902010723.BAA13407@mail.xnet.com>
To: "Gregory W Burnham" <gburnham@sfu.ca>, pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Large objects, why not use the filesystem? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:10:18 PST."
	<00ae01be4d6e$dedfc1e0$8d0835d1@bconnected.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 01:25:22 -0500
From: "Gene Selkov Jr." <selkovjr@mcs.anl.gov>

> 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.

--Gene