----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Haberlach <haberlaa@ricochet.net>
To: Matthew Hagerty <matthew@wolfepub.com>;
<pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 1999 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Large objects, why not use the filesystem?
>On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 03:26:15PM -0500, Matthew Hagerty wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Because the database is in a different room then the client.
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?
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)
