Re: [GENERAL] Re: Large Objects - Mailing list pgsql-general

From dustin sallings
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Re: Large Objects
Date
Msg-id Pine.NEB.4.02.9811211909110.411-100000@dhcp-199.west.spy.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] Re: Large Objects  (Jeroen Schaap <jeroen@rulffh.medfac.leidenuniv.nl>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] Re: Large Objects  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Jeroen Schaap wrote:

// Yes, it still is a seperate file... seems to be a straightforward
// approach. What's wrong with that?

    There are two problems:

    1) It's actually two files, which eats up a lot of inodes to store
       the records, this is bad, and counter-intuitive.
    2) They're all stored in the same directory, which happens to be
       the same directory as the rest of the data, which means file
       access will get slower as you add BLOBs.

    One would be OK if it were one file per BLOB, though it'd be nicer
to manage it in files for blocks/pages instead of individual files.

    Two should be fixed.  At *least* have a BLOB subdirectory, but
preferebly, if you're going to be doing files like this, something like:

    /usr/local/pgsql/data/base/dbname/blob/xx/yy/oid

where xx and yy come from a simple hash of the oid.

--
SA, beyond.com                            The world is watching America,
pub  1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <dustin@spy.net>
|    Key fingerprint =  87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6  C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L________________________________________ and America is watching TV. __


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Dimitris Logothetis
Date:
Subject: Is Postgresql multilingual?
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: Large Objects