Message-ID: <409E2788.6090706@startsiden.no>
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 14:43:52 +0200
From: Denis Braekhus <denis@startsiden.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040501)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Theodore Petrosky <tedpet5@yahoo.com>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: not really SQL but I need info on BLOBs
References: <20040506114622.26803.qmail@web41007.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040506114622.26803.qmail@web41007.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Theodore Petrosky wrote:
| I am working on a project where the IT department is
| pushing really hard to have all the images in the db.
| I don't know what the agenda is. I am hopeful to come
| up with reasons either why this is good or not good.

We have never used BLOB support for images, however one additional
feature of using BLOBs vs files on a disk would be having easier setup
if multiple servers/clients need to access those images.
In the case of using a filesystem you would either have to provide
access to the images over a network filesystem or replication, whereas
using the DB for storage does not require anything more than access to
the DB..

We are using filesystem replication for situations like this (multiple
webservers needing access to exactly the same images), however there are
multiple other options for this situation. Of course needing to do
editing on the images aswell provides additional hurdles.

Bottom line seems to me to be that if this is all to be located on one
server there is no good reason to not use filesystem storage for images,
whereas if you need multiple servers and generally a more complex setup
you should weigh the pros to the cons..

Regards
- --
Denis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-nr2 (Windows XP)

iD8DBQFAnieIvsCA6eRGOOARAiwYAKCeaMfnq35nGoQRixKAsec/+k4kwwCdHy91
EyIqpTqWbZimUFdOjaFdpbI=
=Uzfm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----