From: Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Subject: Re: Big image tables maintenance
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 07:59:58 -0600
References: 
 <CAB3gP9JOKratDxJ54X+DR4axeK0k9ZO2wFw2_PiNovknCB8DsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <d056c4b6-30d5-25de-37cc-107a2382ae96@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <d056c4b6-30d5-25de-37cc-107a2382ae96@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <0F8CB802-9FBC-4EA3-98AE-E81F26B3E559@elevated-dev.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 09/17/2018 07:38 AM, still Learner wrote:
> Hi ,
>=20
> I have a 10 TB size table with multiple bytea columns (image & doc)and =
makes 20TB of DB size. I have a couple of issues to maintain the DB.
>=20
> 1. I Would like to separate the image column from the 10TB size table, =
place it in a separate schema. The change should not result in any query =
change in the application.  Is it possible? Doing this it should not =
affect the performance.=20

They're automatically stored separate, see =
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/storage-toast.html.

> 2. I can't maintain files on File system as the count is huge,

So? I've stored millions of documents on a Mac mini. Real server =
hardware & OS should have no problem--10TB is really not all that much.

> so thinking of using any no-sql mostly mongo-DB, is it recommended? Or =
PostgreSQL itself can handle?=20

Only if all you need is the document storage, none of everything else PG =
offers.

> 3. Taking the backup of 20TB data, is big task. Any more feasible =
solution other than online backup/pg_dump?

That's an argument for keeping the presumably immutable files on the =
file system. (There are arguments against as well.)