Received: from net177138.hcv.com (net177138.hcv.com [209.153.177.138]) by hub.org (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA78229 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:24:48 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from matthew@wolfepub.com) Received: from thunder ([10.0.0.12]) by net177138.hcv.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA18590 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:20:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from matthew@wolfepub.com) Message-Id: <4.1.19990131151130.00a91180@firebat.wolfepub.com> X-Sender: matthew@firebat.wolfepub.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:26:15 -0500 To: pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org From: Matthew Hagerty Subject: Large objects, why not use the filesystem? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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. Comments? Also, could someone explain varchar? I have never found a *really* clear explanation and I'm not sure I fully understand its potential, use, and/or shortcomings. Thank you, Matthew Hagerty